Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 759 (MAD)

R. Manikandan v. District Collector

2014-03-25

C.S.KARNAN

body2014
Judgment 1. The writ petitioner submits that he is the owner of the Tractor bearing registration No.TN-36R-8654, and the said Tractor had been used for carrying building construction stones, for which he has got permit to transport building stones from Malai Karuppusami Koil Quarry to Chellampalayam. It was further submitted that on 29.01.2014, the Tractor was loaded with building stones, after payment of permit fee of a sum of Rs.150/- and at this juncture, the 3rd respondent/The Tahsildar, attached to Andiyur Taluk Office had intercepted the Tractor and found stones loaded in the Tractor and impounded the Tractor on the ground that no permit was available for carrying of building stones. 2. The petitioner further submitted that on the basis of the report submitted by the Tahsildar, the 2nd respondent had passed the impugned order on 17.02.2014 and directed him to pay a total fine amount of Rs.75,750/- under Sub-Rule 4 of Rule 1 and 3 of 36-A of Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1959. 3. Aggrieved by the said impugned order, the above writ petition has been filed to quash the same. The highly competent counsel, Mr. S. Senthilnathan, submits that the petitioner had permit to transport the building stones from Malai Karuppusami Koil Quarry to Chellampalayam. The permit was given to transport building stones from 3.10 p.m. to 6.10 p.m. Accordingly, the writ petitioner transported the building stones on 29.01.2014, from the said quarry. While, the Tractor was carrying the building stones and while it was near Goodumaiyanur, the Tahsildar had intercepted the Tractor at 05.30 p.m., and seized the vehicle. The act of the Tahsildar is highly irregular, since the writ petitioner has taken permission to carry the building stones from 3.10 p.m. to 6.10 p.m., after paying permit fee of Rs.150/-. This was proved before the 3rd respondent but in spite of this, the vehicle had been seized by the 3rd respondent and on the basis of the 3rd respondents' report, the 2nd respondent/Sub Collector passed the impugned order and imposed a fine of Rs.75,750/-. Actually, the cost of the stone per unit is only Rs.615/-, but the fine amount levied is highly excessive when compared with the cost of the stone. 4. The writ petitioner had operated the vehicle after obtaining a loan from Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Company under hire purchase agreement. Actually, the cost of the stone per unit is only Rs.615/-, but the fine amount levied is highly excessive when compared with the cost of the stone. 4. The writ petitioner had operated the vehicle after obtaining a loan from Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Company under hire purchase agreement. As per the hire purchase agreement, he has to remit the monthly installments for a period of 47 months, on or before 10th of every succeeding month, with effect from 10.08.2012. Now, the vehicle is under the custody of the respondent for about three months and as such, the writ petitioner has been put into hardship and has sustained irreparable loss. Besides, the vehicle has been parked in the open sun light which has resulted in damage and has caused depreciation in value of vehicle. Besides, the motor vehicle should not be left idle and it should be operated continuously failing which the engine of the tractor would deteriorate. Hence, the very competent counsel entreats the Court to set aside the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent as it is not valid under law. Further, the writ petitioner is an under privileged person economically. 5. Mr. V. Shanmugasundar, learned Government Advocate, submits that the writ petitioner had transported the stones on 29.01.2014 and when the vehicle was near Goodumaiyanur at about 06.40 p.m., the Tahsildar had intercepted the vehicle and conducted inspection and found that, the stones were being transported without proper permit and hence the 2nd respondent had analyzed the seinorage fee and directed the writ petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.75,750/-as penalty. This order has been passed under Sub Rule 1 and 2 of Rule 4 of section 36(A) of Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules. Further, the order has been passed after written submissions made by the writ petitioner, wherein he had stated that he had transported the stones without permit and also given an undertaking that in future he would not transport the stones without permission. He had also agreed to pay the penalty imposed on him for transporting the said stones. As such, the impugned order of the Sub Collector is suitable for execution. 6. Per contra, the highly competent counsel for the writ petitioner submits that neither an opportunity was given to the writ petitioner nor prior notice was served for preliminary enquiry before passing the impugned order. As such, the impugned order of the Sub Collector is suitable for execution. 6. Per contra, the highly competent counsel for the writ petitioner submits that neither an opportunity was given to the writ petitioner nor prior notice was served for preliminary enquiry before passing the impugned order. As such, the impugned order is violative of the Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. Hence, the writ petitioner, after invoking Article 226 of the constitution has sought remedy before this Court for immediate relief. 7. In reply, Mr. V. Shanmugasundar, the very competent Government Advocate, submits that the writ petitioner himself gave an undertaking on 06.02.2014, before the 2nd respondent herein/Sub Collector and categorically stated that he had transported the building stones without proper permit. Further, he had given an undertaking that he is prepared to pay the penalty, if it is imposed on him and also given an undertaking that he will not commit similar offence in future. Therefore, the question of violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution does not arise in the instant case. Besides, in the operative portion of the 2nd respondents order, it is revealed that if the writ petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order, he is at liberty to prefer an administrative appeal before the District Collector as per the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. As such, the writ petition is not maintainable. Hence, the very competent Government Advocate, Mr. V. Shanmugasundaram, entreated the Court to dismiss the above writ petition. 8. On considering the factual position of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents and on perusing the impugned order of the 2nd respondent, this Court does not find any shortcomings or lapse or discrepancy in the said order except quantum of penalty. The quantum of penalty may be reviewed, after thorough analysis. However, the 2nd respondent, in his order, had given liberty to the writ petitioner to prefer an appeal within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of his order before the District Collector, Erode. Hence, this Court permits the writ petitioner to approach the District Collector, by way of appeal, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Hence, this Court permits the writ petitioner to approach the District Collector, by way of appeal, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. After receipt of appeal from the writ petitioner, this Court directs the District Collector to dispose the appeal within a period of 30 days, on merits. 9. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of with the above observations. Accordingly ordered. There is no order as to costs.