Allowed

Chandra Sekar v. the Assistant Director of Mines

Madras HC1 Oct 2020WP(MD)/13658/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought release of bulluck cart seized in criminal case. Court allowed petition, directing release upon petitioner depositing security sum with named Trust within stipulated time, subject to undertaking against future breach.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to pay Rs.1,000.00 to Sri Jayam Trust; upon completion, respondents to release the vehicle.

Chandra Sekar Vs the Assistant Director of Mines — Property and Title | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.13658 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.13658 of 2020

Chandra Sekar

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Assistant Director of Mines, Ramanathapuram.

¶8

2.The Inspector of Police,

¶9

Kamuthi Police Station, Ramanathapuram District. (Cr.No.422/2020) ... Respondents

¶10

Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to release the bullock cart connection in Cr.No.422/2020 based on the petitioner's representation dated 26.09.2020 within the time stipulated by this Court..

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Jeyaram Sidharth For Respondents : Mr.P.Mahendran

¶12

Additional Government Pleader

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

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.

¶15

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

¶16

The learned Additional 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 of the vehicle.

¶17

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.

¶18

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

¶19

1/3

¶20

W.P.(MD)No.13658 of 2020

¶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

Therefore, the respondents are directed to release the said vehicle subject to the following condition:-

¶25

a) The petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/(Rupees One Thousand only) in favour of Sri Jayam Trust, A/c.No.005109000074101, IFSC : CIUB0000005, City Union Bank, Mayiladuthurai Branch. It will be a non refundable payment.

¶26

Upon completion of this formality, 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.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

// True Copy //

¶29

/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶30

rmi

¶31

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

¶32

2/3

¶33

W.P.(MD)No.13658 of 2020

¶34

To:

¶35

1.The Assistant Director of Mines, Ramanathapuram.

¶36

2.The Inspector of Police, Kamuthi Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

¶37

3.Jayam Goshala, Vanathirajapuram, Mayiladuthurai, Nagapattinam District.

¶38

+1 CC to M/s.GP ( SR-19099[F] dated 05/10/2020 )

¶39

W.P.(MD)No.13658 of 2020 01.10.2020

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

3/3

Chandra Sekar v. the Assistant Director of Mines

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandra Sekar v. the Assistant Director of Mines

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

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

Kalimuthu Vs the Assistant Director of Mines

Karuppasamy Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Suriya Vs the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining