Allowed

G. Vijayakumar v. the Asst.Director

Madras HC17 Aug 2020WP(MD)/9383/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner sought release of a lorry seized for alleged illegal sand transportation. The Court allowed the petition, directing immediate release of the vehicle subject to a non-refundable bond, ownership document submission, and an undertaking to produce the vehicle for enquiries and not alienate it.

What did the court decide?

The respondents directed to release the seized vehicle forthwith upon completion of specified formalities including payment of a non-refundable bond and submission of undertaking.

G. Vijayakumar Vs the Asst.Director — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.9383 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17.08.2020 CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)No.9383 of 2020

¶4

G.Vijayakumar ... Petitioner

¶5

Vs.

¶6

1.The Assistant Director, Mines and Minerals, Thanjavur(Dt.),

¶7

Thanjavur.

¶8

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kumbakonam,

¶9

Thanjavur District.

¶10

The Inspector of Police, Taluk police station, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur (Dt.) ... Respondents

¶11

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 petitioner's Ashok Leyland lorry bearing registration No.TN 33-AJ-3550 based on the petitioner's representation dated 15.06.2020.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Gomathi Sankar For Respondents : Mr.C.Ramar, Additional Government Pleader.

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶15

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

¶16

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.

¶17

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

¶18

1/3

¶19

W.P.(MD)No.9383 of 2020

¶20

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.

¶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

¶24

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.

¶25

Therefore, the respondents are directed to release the said

¶26

vehicle subject to the following conditions:-

¶27

a) The petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) in favour of the Officer-inCharge, 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.

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

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.

¶31

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

¶32

2/3

¶33

W.P.(MD)No.9383 of 2020

¶34

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.

¶35

// True Copy //

¶36

pmu

¶37

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.

¶38

To:

¶39

1.The Assistant Director, Mines and Minerals, Thanjavur(Dt.), Thanjavur.

¶40

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District.

¶41

The Inspector of Police, Taluk police station, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur (Dt.)

¶42

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

¶43

2.The Officer Incharge, High Court Legal Service Committee, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶44

+1 CC to SPL GP ( SR-14313[F] dated 18/08/2020 ) +1 CC to Mr.G. GOMATHI SANKAR, Advocate ( SR-14465[F] dated 19/08/2020 )

¶45

W.P.(MD)No.9383 of 2020 17.08.2020

¶46

VB (21.08.2020) 3P 8C

¶47

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

¶48

3/3

G. Vijayakumar v. the Asst.Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Vijayakumar v. the Asst.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

T.Rameshkannan Vs the Managing Director

K.nallathambi Vs The District Collector

R.Kandasamy Vs The District Collector

T.Mohandass, Vs a.Nirmala Mary

M. Manthiramoorthy Vs the Chairman

Stephen, Vs the District Collector