Allowed

Subramani v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC7 Aug 2020WP(MD)/8696/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought mandamus to release his tractor seized in connection with an illegal sand transport case. The Court held that since the vehicle was not yet produced in court, it should be released subject to a monetary deposit and an undertaking.

What did the court decide?

The respondents were directed to release the seized tractor subject to the petitioner depositing Rs. 25,000 as a non-refundable payment and submitting an undertaking to produce the vehicle and not ali

Subramani Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.8696 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 07.08.2020

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.8696 of 2020

¶7

Subramani Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Paramakudi,

¶10

Ramanathapuram District.

¶11

2.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Muthukulathur Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.

¶12

3.The Inspector of Police, Mudukulathur Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

¶13

4.The Assistant Director,

¶14

Tamilnadu Mines and Minerals,

¶15

Ramanathapuram District.

¶16

Respondents

¶17

Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 20.07.2020 immediately and release his Tractor bearing Reg.No.TN 65 AW 8678 along with Trailer seized on 19.07.2020 in connection with Crime Number 421 of 2020 on the file of the third respondent herein and hand over to the petitioner.

¶18

For Petitioner : M/s.Sathya Chidambaram For Respondents : Mrs.S.Srimathy,

¶19

Special Government Pleader.

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

1/4

¶25

W.P.(MD)No.8696 of 2020

¶26

The learned Special 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.

¶27

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.

¶28

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.

¶29

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:-

¶30

“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.

¶31

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

¶32

a) The petitioner is directed to take a Demand Draft for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) in favour of the Officer-in-Charge, High Court Legal Services Committee, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai, in S.B.A/c.No.496037387 and IFSC : IDIB000H040 in Indian Bank, High Court Branch, Madurai. It will be a non refundable payment. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to ensure that the said sum is withdrawn

¶33

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ immediately and spent for the welfare of the

¶34

2/4

¶35

W.P.(MD)No.8696 of 2020

¶36

Advocates' Clerks associated with the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶37

b) The petitioner shall not alienate or encumber the vehicle in question till the proceedings are completed. c) The petitioner shall produce all the documents pertaining to the ownership of the seized vehicle.

¶38

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.

¶39

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.

¶40

vrn

¶41

Note :

¶42

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

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.

¶45

2.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Muthukulathur Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.

¶46

3.The Inspector of Police, Mudukulathur Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

¶47

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

¶48

3/4

¶49

W.P.(MD)No.8696 of 2020

¶50

4.The Assistant Director, Tamilnadu Mines and Minerals, Ramanathapuram District.

¶51

COPY TO 1.The Registrar(Judicial), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 2.The Secretary, Legal Services Authority, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 3. The President/Secretary, Advocate clerk's Association, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶52

W.P.(MD)No.8696 of 2020 07.08.2020

¶53

NS(CO) TR(12.08.2020) 4P 8C

¶54

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

¶55

4/4

Subramani v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subramani 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rosenaveen Vs the Asst.Director

M/S. Bhagavathi Enterprises Vs the Asst.Commissioner(St)

V.Vinayagam Vs the Chief Engineer

R.Manimuthu, Vs the Executive Officer

Murugesan Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

K.Natarajan Vs The Deputy Director