DURAISAMY Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER DHARAPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records of the respondent in his Proceedings na. Ka. No. 6915/2003/a, dated 12. 9. 2003 and quash the same, consequently direct the respondent to release the bullock cart seized by the respondent on 12. 9. 2003 to the petitioner.

(2.) PETITIONER is the owner of the bullock-cart and claims to be an agriculturist in Mayilrangam Village, Erode District. On 12. 9. 2003, while the petitioner was taking sand on the bullock cart for agricultural and personal use, the sand loaded cart was seized by the respondent and handed over to the revenue Inspector stating that the petitioner engaged in illegal mining of sand. Petitioner states that he made representation on the same day for release of bullock cart stating that the sand was taken for own use and he did not violate the provisions of law. However, the respondent without proper enquiry and without giving the petitioner reasonable opportunity, passed the impugned order in Na. Ka. No. 6915/2003/a dated 12. 9. 2003 holding that the petitioner was engaged in illegal sand quarry and in terms of Rule 36 (A) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Mines and minerals Concession Rules, 1959 imposed fine of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 50/- towards value of sand and Rs. 5/- towards seigniorage totally Rs. 25,055/ -. He also imposed a condition that if the petitioner pays the said amount, the bullock cart will be released. The writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 12. 9. 2003.

(3.) IT is contended that the rules does not provide seizure of bullock cart if it is used for transporting of sand for own use which includes agricultural purpose. It is further pleaded that no notice was issued calling for explanation as to why the bullock cart should not be seized and the provision of law by which the fine and other charges is to be imposed. The whole proceedings of the respondent was conducted in haste on the very same day. Therefore, the action of the authorities ending in the impugned proceedings is arbitrary and capricious. On this premise, the writ petition has been filed.