LAWS(MAD)-2014-3-51

R. MANIKANDAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

Decided On March 25, 2014
R. MANIKANDAN Appellant
V/S
DISTRICT COLLECTOR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(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.) 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.