Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

S.RAMESH versus RDO

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


S.Ramesh v. RDO - WP.27906 of 2007 [2007] RD-TN 2863 (31 August 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS



DATED: 31.8.2007

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN

Writ Petition No.27906 of 2007

S.Ramesh .. Petitioner vs.

The Revenue Divisional Officer,

Tiruttani,

Thiruvallur District. .. Respondent This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to release the seized Tractor and Trailer bearing Registration No.AP 03 G 5423 and AP 03 G 5424, seized on 18.8.2007 by the respondent to the petitioner. For petitioner : Mr.E.Martin Jeyakumar For respondent : Mr.A.Arumugam

Additional Government Pleader O R D E R



Mr.A.Arumugam, the learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondent.

2. With the consent of the learned counsels appearing on either side, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent is directed to release the Tractor and Trailer bearing Registration No.AP 03 G 5423 and AP 03 G 5424 respectively, seized on 18.8.2007 by the respondent to the petitioner, on the following conditions:- A) The petitioner shall establish the ownership of the vehicles by producing the necessary documents before the Respondent. B) The petitioner shall not part with or alienate the vehicles in any manner till the adjudication is over. C) The petitioner shall deposit with the respondent a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) in cash, as agreed. D) The petitioner shall file an undertaking that he will not use the vehicles for any illegal activities in future and also to produce the vehicles before the respondent as and when called for. E) The petitioner shall also produce the vehicles once in two months before the respondent herein in order to ensure that condition (B) is properly complied with.

4. In the event of default by the petitioner in complying with condition B or E, it will be open to the respondent to seize the vehicles, without further notice to the petitioner.

5. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of, at the admission stage itself. No costs. 31.8.2007

INDEX : YES

INTERNET : YES

Note : Issue order copy on 4.9.2007

M.JAICHANDREN J.,

tsi

To

The Revenue Divisional Officer,

Tiruttani,

Thiruvallur District.

W.P.No.27906 of 2007

31.8.2007


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.