Allowed

Meenakshisundaram v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC14 Aug 2020WP(MD)/9332/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a writ petition under Article 226 directing respondents to release the petitioner's seized tractor vehicle involved in an alleged illegal sand transportation case, subject to furnishing a security deposit and undertaking compliance with procedural requirements.

What did the court decide?

The seized tractor vehicle is to be released forthwith upon the petitioner paying Rs. 25,000 as security and submitting an undertaking regarding the vehicle's use and document production.

Meenakshisundaram Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer — Property and Title | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.9332 of 2020

¶2

Meenakshisundaram

¶3

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.08.2020 CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)No.9332 of 2020

¶5

Meenakshisundaram ...Petitioner Vs.

¶6

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

¶7

2.The Assistant Director,

¶8

Mines and Minerals Department, Ramanathapuram District.

¶9

3.The Inspector of Police, Kovilankulam Police Station, Ramanathapuram District. ...Respondents

¶10

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 Tractor vehicle bearing Registration No.TN67-AH-4276, Engine No.089595N, Chasis No.002203704, seized by the third respondent police by considering the petitioner's representation dated 31.07.2020.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Uthayakumar For Respondents : Mr.C.Ramar Additional Government Pleader

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶14

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

¶15

The learned Additional 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.

¶16

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.

¶17

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

¶18

1/3

¶19

W.P.(MD)No.9332 of 2020

¶20

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the vehicle will not be alienated.

¶21

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.

¶22

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:-

¶23

“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.

¶24

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

¶25

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 Narikuravar Community living at Sakkimangalam Village, Madurai or further benefit of the Advocate clerks associated with the District Court in Madurai District.

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

d) As and when the respondents call for the vehicle for enquiry, the petitioner has to produce the vehicle in question and shall cooperate with the enquiry to be conducted by the respondents.

¶29

Upon completion of these formalities, the respondents shall release the vehicle forthwith without any delay. If this https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ undertaking given by the petitioner is breached, the petitioner will

¶30

2/3

¶31

W.P.(MD)No.9332 of 2020

¶32

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.

¶33

// True Copy //

¶34

/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶35

dss/msa

¶36

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.

¶37

To:

¶38

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District. 2.The Assistant Director, Mines and Minerals Department, Ramanathapuram District. 3.The Inspector of Police, Kovilankulam Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

¶39

Copy to

¶40

1.The Registrar (Judicial) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai. 2.The Officer Incharge, High court Legal Services Authority, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1 CC to M/s.GP ( SR-14177[F] dated 17/08/2020 ) W.P.(MD)No.9332 of 2020 14.08.2020 KB(20.08.2020) 3P 7C

¶41

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

¶42

3/3

Meenakshisundaram v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meenakshisundaram 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

Statutes considered

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

Thanga Velu Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer