Allowed

Thanga Velu v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC14 Aug 2020WP(MD)/9315/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought the release of a seized tractor and trailer. The single-judge bench allowed the petition, directing respondents to release the vehicle subject to a bond of Rs. 25,000, prohibition on alienation, and documentary compliance.

What did the court decide?

Release of the seized agricultural tractor and trailer upon payment of a deposit, without alienation of the vehicle and production of ownership documents.

Thanga Velu Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.9315 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 14.08.2020

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.9315 of 2020

¶7

Thangavelu ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ramanathapuram District,

¶10

Ramanathapuram.

¶11

2.The Inspector of Police, Thiruvadanai Police Station, Ramanathapuram District. (Crime No.127 of 2020))

¶12

3.The Tahsildar,

¶13

R.S.Mangalam Taluk Office, Ramanathapuram District.

¶14

4.The Assistant Director of Geology and Miniing, Ramanathapuram,

¶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 second respondent to release the petitioner's vehicle of Agricultural Tractor and its trailer, bearing Registration No.TN63-AS-1117 and Engine No.3911354EG005021A and Chassis No.WVTH30428110319 and to handover the above vehicle to the petitioner, by considering the petitioner's representation dated 04.08.2020 within the time limit that may be stipulated by this Court.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.M.S.Jeyakarthik For Respondents : Mr.M.Rajarajan, Government Advocate

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶21

The petition mentioned vehicle was seized in connection with the alleged illegal transportation of sand. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶22

1/4

¶23

W.P.(MD)No.9315 of 2020

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶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

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

¶31

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, 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

¶32

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Narikuravar Community living at Sakkimangalam Village,

¶33

2/4

¶34

W.P.(MD)No.9315 of 2020

¶35

Madurai or further benefit of the Advocate clerks associated with the District Court in Madurai District. 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.

¶36

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.

¶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

Assistant Registrar(AD-II)

¶39

// True Copy //

¶40

dss/msa

¶41

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.

¶42

To:

¶43

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

¶44

2.The Inspector of Police, Thiruvadanai Police Station, Ramanathapuram District. (Crime No.127 of 2020))

¶45

3.The Tahsildar,

¶46

R.S.Mangalam Taluk Office, Ramanathapuram District.

¶47

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

¶48

3/4

¶49

W.P.(MD)No.9315 of 2020

¶50

4.The Assistant Director of Geology and Miniing, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

¶51

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

¶52

The Officer-in-Charge, High Court Legal Services Committee, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai +1 CC to M/s.M.S. JEYAKARTHIK, Advocate ( SR-14154[F] dated 17/08/2020 ) +1 CC to M/s.GP ( SR-14206[F] dated 17/08/2020 )

¶53

W.P.(MD)No.9315 of 2020 14.08.2020

¶54

SVN(CO) TR(21.08.2020) 4P 9C

¶55

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

¶56

4/4

Thanga Velu v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thanga Velu 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

Tvl Sri Meenakshi Bikes Vs the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

S Rajesh Mahadevan Vs the Insurance Ombudsman

K.Boopathy Karthick Vs the District Collector

T.Vasantha Vs the Regional Transport Authority

S.T.Rajan Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Meenakshisundaram Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer