Allowed

S.Muneeswaran v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC2 Sept 2020WP(MD)/10696/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court directed the respondents to release the petitioner's tractor and trailer seized during an investigation into alleged illegal transportation of sand. The court allowed the petition subject to specific conditions, including payment of a sum towards welfare activities and undertaking to produce the vehicle upon demand.

What did the court decide?

The respondents are directed to release the seized tractor and trailer, subject to payment of Rs.5,000 towards welfare activities and strict undertaking conditions regarding alienation and future prod

S.Muneeswaran Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer — Property and Title | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.10696 of 2020

¶2

S.Muneeswaran

¶3

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02.09.2020 CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)No.10696 of 2020

¶5

S.Muneeswaran ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivakasi Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

¶6

2.The Tahsildar, Srivilliputhur Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

¶7

3.The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Virudhunagar,

¶8

Virudhunagar District.

¶9

4.The Inspector of Police, Vanniyampatti Vilakku Police Station, Virudhunagar District. ... Respondents (Crime No.274 of 2020)

¶10

Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to release the petitioner's vehicle of Tractor and Trailer, bearing Registration No.TN-76-V-0763 and hand over the above vehicle to the petitioner within the time limit that may be stipulated by this Court, based on the Petitioner's respresentation ddated 05.08.2020

¶11

For Petitioner : Ms.M.Viji For Respondents : Mrs.S.Srimathy, Special Government Pleader.

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

Heard the learned counsel on either side. By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶14

The petition mentioned vehicle was seized in connection with the alleged illegal transportation of sand.

¶15

The learned Special Government Pleader states that even though the criminal case has been registered, the vehicle in question is yet to be produced before the jurisdictional Court. The case is still under investigation. I am of the view that so long as the vehicle has not been produced before the Jurisdictional Court, the Writ Court will always have the power to direct for the release

¶16

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

1/4

¶18

W.P.(MD)No.10696 of 2020

¶19

of the vehicle.

¶20

The petitioner's counsel gives an undertaking that the petitioner will see to it that the vehicle is not involved in any other offences of similar nature. The vehicle will be produced before the authority or the Court concerned as and when required. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the vehicle will not be alienated.

¶21

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is placed on record. If the undertaking given before this Court is breached, the benefit of this order will stand recalled and the vehicle in question will be taken back to custody and it will be released only after getting orders from this Court on such terms as this Court may deem it fit to impose.

¶22

I am of the view that keeping the petition mentioned vehicle in the custody of the respondents is not going to serve any purpose. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283 (Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and Others V. State of Gujarat) has held as follows:-

¶23

“17.In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles.

¶24

The petitioner's counsel states that while obtaining anticipatory bail, the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) and that he had complied with the said condition. Taking note of the same, I am inclined to show some indulgence while fixing the quantum. He further states that the trailer is not having any registration. Hence, the respondents are directed to return the trailer to the petitioner even though the trailer does not have any registration.

¶25

8.Therefore, the respondents are directed to release the said vehicle subject to the following conditions:-

¶26

a) The petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/(Rupees Five Thousand only) in favour of the Officer-inCharge, High Court Legal Services Committee, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai, S.B.A/c.No.496037387, IFSC : IDIB000H040, Indian Bank, High Court Branch, Madurai. It will be a non refundable payment. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to spend the amount for appropriate welfare activities such as feeding the disadvantaged communities in Madurai https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶27

2/4

¶28

W.P.(MD)No.10696 of 2020

¶29

District.

¶30

b) The petitioner shall not alienate or encumber the vehicle in question till the proceedings are completed.

¶31

c) As and when the respondents call for the vehicle for enquiry, the petitioner has to produce the vehicle in question and he shall cooperate with the enquiry to be conducted by the respondents.

¶32

Upon completion of these formalities, the respondents shall release the vehicle forthwith without any delay. If this undertaking given by the petitioner is breached, the petitioner will not be entitled to interim release of the vehicle in future. The Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶33

// True Copy //

¶34

/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶35

ias/dss

¶36

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶37

To:

¶38

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivakasi Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

¶39

2.The Tahsildar, Srivilliputhur Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

¶40

3.The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District.

¶41

4.The Inspector of Police, Vanniyampatti Vilakku Police Station, Virudhunagar District.

¶42

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶43

3/4

¶44

W.P.(MD)No.10696 of 2020

¶45

Copy to :

¶46

1.The Registrar (Judicial), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶47

2.The Officer Incharge High Court Legal Services Committee, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶48

+1 CC to M/s.M. VIJI, Advocate ( SR-15654[F] dated 02/09/2020 )

¶49

+1 CC to M/s.Special Government pleader ( SR-15940[F] dated 04/09/2020 )

¶50

W.P.(MD)No.10696 of 2020 02.09.2020

¶51

KB(09.09.2020) 4P 9C

¶52

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶53

4/4

S.Muneeswaran v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Muneeswaran v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.Jegan Vs The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies

K. Balamurugan Vs the District Environment Engineer

Consolidated Construction Consortium Ltd. Vs the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board(Twad)

Sivagangai Municipality Vs Joint Commissioner

Agrini Enclave Houses and Vs the Commissioner

V.Veeramani, Vs the Commissioner