Allowed

Saravanan v. the Assistant Director

Madras HC14 Oct 2020WP(MD)/14329/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench granted a Writ of Mandamus directing the release of the petitioner's seized JCB vehicle. The Court imposed conditions including executing a bond, prohibiting alienation, and producing the vehicle upon future calls for investigation.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondents to release the JCB upon fulfillment of conditions: bond execution, non-alienation, no color change, and prompt production if called.

Saravanan Vs the Assistant Director — Property and Title | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.14329 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 14.10.2020

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.14329 of 2020

¶7

Saravanan ... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

The Assistant Director, Mines and Minerals Department, Office of the Collectorate, Pudukottai District.

¶10

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Illupur Post and Taluk, Pudukottai District. 3. The Tahsildar, Illupur Post and Taluk, Pudukottai District. 4. The Inspector of Police, Annavasal Police Station, Pudukottai District. ... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to release the petitioner's JCB bearing registration number TN 55 BU 0958.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian For Respondents : Mr.C.Ramesh Special Government Pleader

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This writ petition has been filed for a Mandamus seeking for a direction to the respondents to release the Petitioner's vehicle viz., JCB bearing registration number TN 55 BU 0958.

¶15

By consent of both parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶16

It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner of the JCB bearing registration number TN 55 BU 0958. According to him, on 04.10.2020, the fourth respondent has registered a case against the petitioner in Crime No.434 of 2020 for the offence punishable under Section 379 of I.P.C., r/w Sections 21(1) and 21(2) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957,

¶17

1/4

¶18

W.P.(MD)No.14329 of 2020

¶19

alleging that the petitioner has transported sand in his vehicle without proper invoices. The petitioner's vehicle was seized by the fourth respondent Police on the same day. According to the petitioner, ever since the seizure, the said vehicle is still in the custody of the Police.

¶20

It is also the contention of the petitioner that the vehicle has also not been produced by the fourth respondent Police before the concerned Jurisdictional Court. According to him, the seized vehicle is now kept idle in the Police Station premises in the open place and exposed to the vagaries of nature, resulting in the vehicle depreciating in value.

¶21

According to the petitioner, he gave a representation to the fourth respondent on 05.10.2020 for releasing of the seized vehicle back to him. According to him, the fourth respondent has failed to respond to the said representation. In such circumstances, he has filed this Writ Petition seeking for release of the seized vehicle.

¶22

Admittedly, the vehicle was seized by the fourth respondent on 04.10.2020 and a case has been registered in Crime No.434 of 2020 for the offence punishable under Section 379 of I.P.C., r/w Sections 21(1) and 21(2) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, alleging that the petitioner has transported sand in his vehicle without proper invoices. Admittedly, the vehicle is now in the Police Station premises and kept in the open place and exposed to the vagaries of nature and has also not been produced before the Jurisdictional Court.

¶23

As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the vehicle will certainly depreciate in value, if it is allowed to remain in the open place and kept idle for a long period of time. No useful purpose will be served if the vehicle is allowed to be kept idle. In similar matters, this Court has granted release of seized vehicles to the respective petitioners subject to fulfillment of certain conditions. Therefore, this Court is inclined to grant similar relief to the petitioner subject to fulfillment of the following conditions:-

¶24

(i)the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) in favour of the second respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶25

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

¶26

(iii)the petitioner shall not change the colour and scheme of the vehicle.

¶27

(iv)the petitioner shall not use the vehicle for any illegal activities.

¶28

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

¶29

2/4

¶30

W.P.(MD)No.14329 of 2020

¶31

(v)before releasing the vehicle, the police authority shall take photographs of the vehicle at the cost of the petitioner.

¶32

(vi)The petitioner shall produce all xerox copies of the documents pertaining to the ownership of the seized vehicle to the fourth respondent.

¶33

(vii)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.

¶34

Upon completion of the above mentioned formalities, the respondents shall release the JCB bearing registration number TN 55 BU 0958. to the petitioner forthwith and without any delay. If this undertaking given by the petitioner is breached, the petitioner will not be entitled for interim release of the vehicle in the future.

¶35

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶36

Assistant Registrar (Crl.Side)

¶37

// True Copy //

¶38

/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶39

¶40

Note :In view of the present lock down owing to COVID19 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.

¶41

¶42

The Assistant Director, Mines and Minerals Department, Office of the Collectorate, Pudukottai District.

¶43

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Illupur Post and Taluk, Pudukottai District.

¶44

The Tahsildar, Illupur Post and Taluk,

¶45

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

¶46

3/4

¶47

W.P.(MD)No.14329 of 2020

¶48

The Inspector of Police, Annavasal Police Station, Pudukottai District.

¶49

+1 CC to th GP ( SR-20202[F] dated 15/10/2020 )

¶50

W.P.(MD)No.14329 of 2020

¶51

14.10.2020

¶52

SS(CO) CS(20.10.2020) 4P 6C

¶53

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

¶54

4/4

Saravanan v. the Assistant Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saravanan v. the Assistant Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Selvin Innocent Vs the Central Registrar of

P.Perumal Vs The District Collector

S.Ramesh Vs M/s.Uniter INdia Insurance Company Ltd.

R. Lakshmi, W/O.R.Rathinam, Vs the Executive Engineer

Devaki Veeraiyan Vs the District Collector Cum-`

The Managing Trustee Vs the Kaliarkavilai Selection Grade Town Panchayat