Allowed

Vijakumari v. the District Collector

Madras HC13 Aug 2020WP(MD)/9225/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought writs for the release of a lorry seized during an investigation into illegal sand transportation. The court directed the respondents to release the vehicle subject to a non-refundable payment of Rs.25,000, an undertaking not to alienate it, and conditions requiring document production and cooperation with enquiries.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to release the seized lorry upon compliance with undertaking against alienation, submission of ownership documents, and cooperation with enquiries, subject to a non-refundable dep

Vijakumari Vs the District Collector — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.9225 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 13.08.2020

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)No.9225 of 2020

Vijayakumari

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector,

¶10

Karur District, Karur.

¶11

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,

¶12

Karur District, Karur.

¶13

3.The Assistant Director, Geology and Mines Department, Karur District.

¶14

4.The Inspector of Police,

¶15

Vangal Police Station, Karur District. ... Respondents

¶16

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 Lorry bearing Regisration No.TN 88 Z 2169, seized by the fourth respondent on 06.07.2020.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Gokulraj For Respondents : Mr.M.Rajarajan Government Advocate

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

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.

¶20

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

¶21

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.

¶22

The petitioner's counsel gives an undertaking that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner will see to it that the vehicle is not involved in any

¶23

1/3

¶24

W.P.(MD)No.9225 of 2020

¶25

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.

¶26

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.

¶27

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:-

¶28

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

¶29

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.”

¶30

The petitioner's counsel states that the petitioner has

¶31

already paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) while obtaining anticipatory bail. Taking note of the same, I am inclined to show some indulgence while fixing the quantum of cost. Therefore, the respondents are directed to release the said vehicle subject to the following conditions:-

¶32

a) The petitioner is directed to pay 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, IFSC : IDIB000H040, Indian Bank, High Court Branch, Madurai. It will be a non refundable payment. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to spend the amount towards feeding the members of the Narikuravar Community living at Sakkimangalam Village, Madurai.

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

d) As and when the respondents call for the vehicle for

¶36

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ enquiry, the petitioner has to produce the vehicle in

¶37

2/3

¶38

W.P.(MD)No.9225 of 2020

¶39

question and she shall cooperate with the enquiry to be conducted by the respondents.

¶40

Upon completion of these formalities, the respondents shall release the vehicle forthwith and 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.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

Assistant Registrar(AD-II)

¶43

// True Copy //

¶44

/ /2020

¶45

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶46

tsg

¶47

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.

¶48

To:

¶49

1.The District Collector, Karur District, Karur.

¶50

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Karur District, Karur.

¶51

3.The Assistant Director, Geology and Mines Department, Karur District.

¶52

4.The Inspector of Police, Vangal Police Station, Karur District.

¶53

COPY TO

¶54

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

¶55

The Officer-in-Charge, High Court Legal Services Committee, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai

¶56

+1 CC to M/s.GP ( SR-14250[F] dated 17/08/2020 )

¶57

W.P.(MD)No.9225 of 2020 13.08.2020

¶58

SCR(CO)

¶59

TR(20.08.2020) 3P 8C

¶60

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

¶61

3/3

Vijakumari v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijakumari v. the District Collector

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

A.Nagalingam Vs Sakkarai Ammal

M. Thangappa Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

P.Balamurugan Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer

P.Shanmugam Vs the District Collector

I.Kumarasamy, Vs the District Collector

Pandiammal Vs the Commissioner Cum Tender Inviting Authority