Allowed

Suriya v. the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining

Madras HC1 Oct 2020WP(MD)/13579/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court allowed the petitioner's writ petition for the release of a seized tractor and trailer. The court held that keeping seized vehicles at police stations serves no purpose if not produced in court. The vehicle was released subject to an undertaking not to alienate it, produce ownership documents, and cooperate with future enquiries.

What did the court decide?

Release of the seized tractor and trailer subject to undertaking of not alienating, producing ownership documents, and cooperating with enquiries.

Suriya Vs the Assistant Director of Geology… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.13579 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01.10.2020 CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)No.13579 of 2020

Suriya

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Assistant Director of Geology and Mining, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

¶8

2.The Inspector of Police, R.S.Mangalam Police Station, Ramanathapuram District. (Crime No.68 of 2019) ... Respondents

¶9

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 vehicles of Tractor and Trailer bearing Model No.36308, Chassis No.NHN 3630SZGG360270, Engine No.183838 D and to hand over the above vehicle to the petitioner forthwith by considering the petitioner's representation dated 24.09.2020 within the time limit that may be stipulated by this Court.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.M.S.Jeyakarthik For Respondents : Mr.S.Angappan

¶11

Government Advocate

¶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 Government Advocate 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 of the vehicle.

¶16

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.

¶17

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

¶18

1/3

¶19

W.P.(MD)No.13579 of 2020

¶20

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.

¶21

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:-

¶22

“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.

¶23

7.The petitioner's counsel states that the petition mentioned vehicle is in the custody of the respondents for almost an year.

¶24

Therefore, I refrain from imposing any cost. The respondents are directed to release the said vehicle subject to the following conditions:-

¶25

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

¶26

b) The petitioner shall produce all the documents pertaining to the ownership of the seized vehicle.

¶27

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.

¶28

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.

¶29

// True Copy //

¶30

/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶31

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

¶32

2/3

¶33

W.P.(MD)No.13579 of 2020

¶34

rmi

¶35

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.

¶36

To:

¶37

1.The Assistant Director of Geology and Mining, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

¶38

2.The Inspector of Police, R.S.Mangalam Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

¶39

+1 CC to M/s.M.S. JEYAKARTHIK, Advocate ( SR-18876[F] dated 05/10/2020 )

¶40

+1 CC to M/s.GP ( SR-19172[F] dated 06/10/2020 )

¶41

W.P.(MD)No.13579 of 2020

¶42

01.10.2020

¶43

SS(CO) KK(13.10.2020) 3 P 5C

¶44

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

¶45

3/3

Suriya v. the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suriya v. the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining

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

A. Ponshanthi Vs Tamil Nadu Housing Board

Sathiskumar Vs the Executive Engineer

Dr.Radhakrishnan Vidhyalaya Matriculation Vs the Commissioner

Chandra Sekar Vs the Assistant Director of Mines

Kalimuthu Vs the Assistant Director of Mines

Karuppasamy Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer