K. Murukesan vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

D. Hariparanthaman, J.—Since the prayer in the writ petition lies in a narrow compass, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. Heard

the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.

The lorry of the petitioner was seized while it carried unauthorized sand on 11.06.2013. The petitioner is said to have sent a representation

dated 11.06.2013 to the respondent to release the lorry. The acknowledgment is not enclosed in the typed set. Even before this Court no

acknowledgment is produced.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the writ petitions are disposed of in similar matters, directing the petitioner to

deposit certain amount and the respondent is directed to release the lorry and the respondent is further directed to complete the adjudication

proceedings within a stipulated period.

On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader has relied on the Judgment of Division Bench of this Court and submitted that the

petitioner should approach first the respondent seeking the release of lorry and if the respondent fails to release the lorry, then only, he should

approach this Court.

The relevant passage from the Judgment of Division Bench of this Court, reported in The Deputy Commissioner of Civil Supplies and The

Assistant Commissioner of Civil Supplies Vs. S. Damodaran, is extracted here under:

....

a) In case any essential commodity or any commodity, package, vehicle, animal, etc., is seized on confiscated and the person from whom such

commodity or vehicle is seized, or the owner of the commodity or vehicle intends to get an order for release of the commodity or vehicle, they

should first avail the alternative remedy before the competent authority for release of such commodity or vehicle for the grounds and reasons as

may be taken by the aggrieved persons;

b) In case such application for release of the commodity, package or vehicle is filed, the competent authority/appellate authority will dispose of the

application immediately, preferably within a week. In case of any adverse decision, the ground should be communicated to the applicant;

c) Only when the competent authority/appellate authority fail to discharge their duty, the concerned person may move straight away before the

High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for appropriate relief;

d) However, it is always open to the High Court to pass appropriate order under Article 226, but generally it should be reluctant to grant such

relief if the party fails to take recourse to alternative remedy.

The learned Special Government Pleader has also submitted that the respondent is the competent authority, who alone knows as to whether the

petitioner is involved in the illegal quarrying and transportation of sand habitually. Hence, it is appropriate to direct the respondent to pass orders

within a stipulated period.

In these circumstances and particularly taking note of the aforesaid decision of Division Bench of this Court, I am inclined to direct the petitioner

to make a fresh representation to the respondent seeking the release of lorry and the respondent is directed to pass orders thereon, on merits and

in accordance with law, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the representation. The respondent is at liberty to impose any

condition for the release of lorry. In case of any adverse decision, the petitioner is at liberty to approach this Court questioning the same. The writ

petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.