Allowed

K.Natarajan v. The Deputy Director

Madras HC7 Aug 2020WP(MD)/8999/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench issued a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents to release a seized tractor belonging to the petitioner, conditioned on depositing a non-refundable sum for advocates' clerks and complying with inquiry requirements, citing Supreme Court precedent on vehicle custody.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to release the seized vehicle subject to deposit of Rs.25,000 non-refundable sum for advocates' clerks, undertaking not to alienate, and production of documents.

K.Natarajan Vs The Deputy Director — Property and Title | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.8999 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07.08.2020 CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)No.8999 of 2020

K.Natarajan

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Deputy Director, Mines and Minerals, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai.

¶8

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,

¶9

Aranthangi, Pudukkottai District.

¶10

3.The Inspector of Police Manamelgudi Police Station Pudukkottai District.

¶11

... Respondents

¶12

[Crime No.401 of 2020]

¶13

Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the third respondent to release the unnumbered vehicle named Tractor of the petitioner.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sevugaraja For Respondents : Mr.M.Rajarajan Government Advocate. * * * O R D E R

¶15

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶16

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

¶17

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 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.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

1/3

¶21

W.P.(MD)No.8999 of 2020

¶22

vehicle will not be alienated.

¶23

5.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

6.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

Therefore, the respondents are directed to release the

¶27

said vehicle subject to the following conditions:-

¶28

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 immediately and spent for the welfare of the Advocates' Clerks associated with the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

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.

¶32

8.Upon completion of these formalities, the respondents shall https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ release the vehicle forthwith without any delay. If this undertaking

¶33

2/3

¶34

W.P.(MD)No.8999 of 2020

¶35

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.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

Assistant Registrar (Records)

¶38

/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶39

msa

¶40

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.

¶41

To:

¶42

1.The Deputy Director, Mines and Minerals, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai.

¶43

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Aranthangi, Pudukkottai District.

¶44

3.The Inspector of Police Manamelgudi Police Station Pudukkottai District.

¶45

Copy to: 1.The Registrar(Judicial), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶46

2.The Officer in charge, High Court Legal Services Committee, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶47

+1 CC to M/s.GP ( SR-14001[F] dated 13/08/2020 )

¶48

W.P.(MD)No.8999 of 2020 07.08.2020

¶49

KK(13.08.2020) 3 P 7C

¶50

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

¶51

3/3

K.Natarajan v. The Deputy Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Natarajan v. The Deputy Director

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

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

Thangavel Vs the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining