Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3851 (MAD)

K. J. Vargheese v. Collector of

2014-10-15

T.S.SIVAGNANAM

body2014
Judgment : 1. By consent of the learned counsel on either side, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. Heard Mr.P.Prakash Paul, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.M.Dig Vijay Pandian, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition, seeking a direction to the respondent to return the original Registration Certificate of the Mini Lorry bearing Reg. No.TN-32 U 1170 to the petitioner.. 4. Earlier, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition in W.P.No.5175 of 2014, when the petitioner's vehicle was seized by the respondents, on the allegation that the vehicle was used for illegal transporting of silver oak trees. In the said writ petition, the petitioner sought for a direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudalur, Nilgiris District to release the Mini Lorry. 5. This Court, by order dated 05.03.2014, directed the release of Mini Lorry, subject to certain conditions, which read as follows: “6. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to release the mini lorry bearing Registration No.TN 32 U 1170 to the custody of the petitioner subject to the conditions mentioned below: i) The petitioner shall establish the ownership of the vehicle by producing documentary evidence such as Registration Certificate etc., ii) The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) on the file of the second respondent forthwith. iii) The petitioner shall file an affidavit of undertaking to the second respondent stating that he will not alienate or encumber the mini lorry to any third parties till the completion of adjudication proceedings by the respondents. iv) The petitioner is also directed not to indulge in any other criminal offence either directly or indirectly or commit breach of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules.” 6. Accordingly, the petitioner complied with the conditions, filed requisite affidavit and the release order was passed by the 2nd respondent on 21.03.2014. 7. The grievance of the petitioner is that the original Registration Certificate of the Mini Lorry has not been returned by the 2nd respondent, stating that there was no specific direction in the order passed in the earlier writ petition to return the original Registration Certificate. 8. It is to be noted that the Mini Lorry was directed to be released after verifying the ownership for which the petitioner was directed to produce the original Registration Certificate. 8. It is to be noted that the Mini Lorry was directed to be released after verifying the ownership for which the petitioner was directed to produce the original Registration Certificate. Therefore, the 2nd respondent would not be justified in retaining the original Registration Certificate after returning the Mini Lorry. Therefore, there shall be a direction to the 2nd respondent to return the original Registration Certificate to the petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. It is made clear that if the petitioner violates any of the conditions or undertaking given pursuant to the order passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition or commits any offence in future, it is open to the 2nd respondent to take action against the petitioner's vehicle as well as the petitioner in accordance with law. 10. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.