Petitioner sought mandamus for release of seized lorry. Court directed second respondent to release vehicle forthwith upon compliance with prior court-imposed conditions regarding deposit and documentation.
Directed second respondent to release the lorry forthwith if prior order conditions are complied with.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 23.04.2014
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH
Writ Petition (MD) No.3063 of 2014
S.Rampranav
Vs.
1.The District Revenue Officer, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai. 2.The Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies CID, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District. . . Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to forthwith release the lorry belonging to the petitioner bearing Registration No.TN 49 AT 3180.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Gomathi Sankar
For Respondents :Mr.V.Pandi Government Advocate
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this writ petition for a Mandamus directing the second respondent to forthwith release the lorry bearing registration No.TN 49 AT 3180.
i) the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) in cash with the respondent.
ii) the petitioner shall produce the documents relating to the ownership of the vehicle.
iii)the petitioner shall file an undertaking that he will produce the vehicle in question before the respondent as and when called for enquiry and that he will not alienate the vehicle in question till the proceedings initiated are completed.
iv) on compliance of the above conditions, the respondent is directed to release the vehicle to the petitioner within three days.
v)the respondent is directed to pass final orders in the adjudication proceedings, within a period of two months.
vi) it is made clear that this order will hold good only if the vehicle in question is not in the custody of criminal Court. If the vehicle is in custody of the Criminal Court, it is open to the petitioner to approach the concerned Judicial Magistrate to get release of the vehicle, by filing appropriate application.
vii) as the vehicle is under the custody of the respondent, the above order is to be complied with within three days, if no order of adjudication or confiscation is passed as on today."
When the petitioner approaches the first respondent along with a copy of the order of this order passed in W.P.(MD).No.15492 of 2013, the first respondent directed the second respondent to release the lorry. Since the second respondent was not added as a party in the said writ petition, he had refused to release the lorry. Therefore, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
/True Copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1.The District Revenue Officer, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai. 2.The Inspector of Police,
Civil Supplies CID, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District.
+1cc to Mr.G.Gomathi Sankar,Advocate in SR.No. 24987
+1cc to Special Government Pleader in SR.No. 25168.
TS/28.04.2014/2P-5c
Writ Petition (MD) No.3063 of 2014
24.04.2014
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the second respondent police officer is directed to release the seized lorry if conditions from a prior order are met.
Whether a departmental officer can refuse release based on non-participation in a previous proceeding.
S.Rampranav
District Revenue Officer, Pudukkottai District
Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies CID, Thanjavur
R.SUBBIAH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
