Allowed

K.Kabildoss v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC3 Aug 2020WP(MD)/8513/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted a Writ of Mandamus directing the release of the petitioner's seized lorry. The order mandated a non-refundable deposit, an undertaking against alienation, and production of documents, relying on Supreme Court precedent regarding unnecessary detention of seized vehicles.

What did the court decide?

Directive to release the seized vehicle subject to a Rs.50,000 deposit, undertaking against alienation, and production of documents.

K.Kabildoss Vs The Revenue Divisional… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

1 W.P.(MD)NO.8513 OF 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 03.08.2020

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.8513 of 2020

¶7

K.Kabildoss ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

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 lorry bearing registration No.TN74-AR-8831, Engine No.697TC56EUZ116641 Chassis No.373134FUZ119024, seized by the third respondent police by considering the petitioner's representation dated 20.07.2020 within a time stipulated by this Court.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Veerakumar

¶14

For Respondents : Mr.M.Rajarajan,

¶15

Government Advocate.

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

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.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

1/6

¶21

2 W.P.(MD)NO.8513 OF 2020

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

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:-

¶26

“17.In our view, whatever be the situation, it

¶27

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.

¶28

7.Therefore, the respondents are directed to release the said

¶29

vehicle subject to the following conditions:-

¶30

a) The petitioner shall remit a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the credit of the District Legal Services Authority, Ramanathapuram District. It will be a non-refundable payment. The concerned Principal District Judge shall utilise the said fund immediately for the welfare of the Advocates' Clerks in the District and send user certificate to the Registry of this Court.

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

d) 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

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

¶35

2/6

¶36

3 W.P.(MD)NO.8513 OF 2020

¶37

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.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

Deputy Registrar (Accounts)

¶40

// True Copy //

¶41

/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶42

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.

¶43

To:

¶44

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

¶45

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

¶46

The Inspector of Police,

¶47

Kenikarai police station, Ramanathapuram District.

¶48

The Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram District.

¶49

The Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram.

¶50

Ramanathapuram District Legal Services Authority, District Court Building, Ramanathapuram.

¶51

W.P.(MD)No.8513 of 2020 03.08.2020

¶52

pmu

¶53

SDS (12.08.2020) 3P-7C

¶54

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

¶55

3/6

K.Kabildoss v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Kabildoss 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R. Anitha Vs the Inspector of Police

M/S.Andavar Traders Vs the Regional Manager

Annalakshmi Vs the District Collector

V.Ulagammal Vs Om Prakash

P.Subramani Vs The District Collector

M. Ayyanar Vs the General Manager