NAGARAJU Vs. TAHSILDAR CHANNAPATNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in the these batch of Writ petitions are the owners of the lorries which are used for transporting sand without valid permit in the areas of T. Narasipura Taluk, Mysore district. The respondent-Tahasildar seized the impugned lorries on 1. 12. 2008 at about 8-00 P. M. near Hanumanthanagar, Channapatna, ramanagara District, alleging that the petitioners are transporting sand illegally by the impugned lorries, above 3ft. from the body level. 1. 2. By proceedings dated 1. 12. 2008, the respondent called upon the petitioners to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- per lorry and in case of petitioner no. 8, the respondent demanded a fine of Rs. 50,000/-, of course, without prejudice to initiate suitable further action against the petitioners, in case of non-payment of the finale amount. 1. 3. On receipt of the notice, petitioners made representation on 8. 12. 2008 requesting the respondent to release their lorries as they have not violated any Rules or Regulations, as the petitioners are only the owners of the lorries in question. The respondent, without appreciating the explanation offered by the petitioners in their representation dated 8. 12. 2008, passed a final order on 8. 12. 2008 itself calling upon the petitioners to pay the fine amount proposed, failing which, the impugned lorries seized, would be brought to auction on 11. 12. 2008.

(2.) BEING aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners moved this court in Writ Petition Nos. 15520-15523/2003 and 15637-15641/2008 connected with Writ Petition Nos. 16057-16058/2008 and Writ Petitions nos. 15520-15523/2008 and 15637-15641/2008. at the time of issuing notices, this Court directed the Taluka Executive Magistrate, Chennapatna, not to proceed with the auction, if each of the petitioners deposit a sum of rs. 25,000/- and since the petitioners were not heard in the matter before initiation of the impugned action and therefore, a direction was also issued to the respondent to hear the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in the matter. 2. 1. When the matter came up for admission on 19. 12. 2008, after hearing learned Counsel for the parties, the learned Single Judge made the following order:

(3.) PURSUANT to the directions of this Court, the respondent-Tahasildar heard the petitioners and passed the impugned order on 1. 1. 2009, which is under challenge in the present batch of Writ Petitions.