Allowed

Patchamal v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC23 Jul 2020WP(MD)/7940/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed the writ petition and directed police and revenue authorities to release an Earth Moving Equipment seized during an investigation. Release was conditioned on payment of a non-refundable amount, undertaking not to alienate the vehicle, and production of documents.

What did the court decide?

Direction to release the seized Earth Moving Equipment upon payment of Rs. 25,000 to District Collector and undertaking not to alienate the vehicle or breach conditions.

Patchamal Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

1 W.P.(MD)NO. OF 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 23.07.2020

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.7940 of 2020

¶7

Patchamal ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Paramakudi,

¶10

Ramanathapuram District.

¶11

The Assistant Director, Mines and Minerals Department, Ramanathapuram District.

¶12

The Inspector of Police, Keelathooval police station, Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, direct the respondents to release the petitioner's Earth Moving Equipment (Caterpillar India Pvt. Ltd.,) bearing registration No.TN 65-V3670, Engine No.4H32011320645 Chassis No.IMOPO5130224, seized by the third respondent police by considering the petitioner's representation dated 15.07.2020 within a time stipulated by this Court.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Veerakumar For Respondents : Mrs.S.Srimathy, Special Government Pleader.

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

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.

¶17

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

¶18

The learned Special Government Pleader states that even though the criminal case has been registered, the vehicle in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

1/4

¶20

2 W.P.(MD)NO. OF 2020

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

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:-

¶25

“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.

¶26

The petitioner is not figuring as accused in Crime No.138 of 2020. The contraband in this case was removed only from the patta land. Taking note of these aspects, this Court shows a little indulgence to the petitioner.

¶27

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

¶28

a) The petitioner shall take a Demand Draft for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) in the name of the District Collector, Ramanathapuram District. It will be a non-refundable payment. The District Administration will also spend the same immediately on some welfare measures and send the user https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ certificate to the Registry of this Court. The

¶29

2/4

¶30

3 W.P.(MD)NO. OF 2020

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

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.

¶34

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.

¶35

Assistant Registrar(CS-II)

¶36

// True Copy //

¶37

/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶38

pmu

¶39

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.

¶40

To:

¶41

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.

¶42

The Assistant Director, Mines and Minerals Department, Ramanathapuram District.

¶43

The Inspector of Police, Keelathooval police station, Ramanathapuram District.

¶44

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

¶45

3/4

¶46

4 W.P.(MD)NO. OF 2020

¶47

COPY TO

¶48

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

¶49

The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District.

¶50

W.P.(MD)No.7940 of 2020

¶51

db(CO) TR(28.07.2020)4P 6C

¶52

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

¶53

4/4

Patchamal v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Patchamal 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

P.Rajasekar Vs the Director

E.Ponnusamy Vs The Chief Engineer PWD

The Managing Director, Vs the Motor Vehicles Inspector

N.Panchavarnam Vs the Joint Director

S.Maharajan Vs The District Collector

Amaran Vs the Assistant Director