Allowed

P. Sathiyendiran v. the Assistant Director

Madras HC24 Aug 2020WP(MD)/9839/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed a writ petition for the release of a seized JCB vehicle alleged to be involved in illegal sand transportation. The court directed respondents to release the vehicle upon payment of a non-refundable contribution and fulfillment of security conditions.

What did the court decide?

Vehicle released subject to payment of Rs.50,000 non-refundable contribution, undertaking not to alienate vehicle, production of ownership documents, and cooperation with enquiries.

P. Sathiyendiran Vs the Assistant Director — Property and Title | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No. 9839 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 24.08.2020 CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)No. 9839 of 2020

P.Sathiyendiran

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Assistant Director, Tamilnadu Mines and Minerals, Ramanathapuram District.

¶8

The Revenue Divisional Officer,

¶9

Office of the Collectorate,

¶10

Ramanathapuram District.

¶11

The Inspector of Police,

¶12

Periyur police station, Ramanathapuram District.

¶13

The Village Administrative Officer, Muthukulathur Group Village, Ramanathapuram. ... Respondents

¶14

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 “MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LTD” JCB Earth Moving Machine carriage bearing registration No.TN 65-AY-4172 which was seized on 10.03.2020 by the respondents and to consider the petitioner's representation dated 06.08.2020.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Saravanan For Respondents : Mr.M.Rajarajan, Additional Government Pleader.

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶18

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

¶19

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.

¶20

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

¶21

1/3

¶22

W.P.(MD)No. 9839 of 2020

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

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:-

¶26

“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.

¶27

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

¶28

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 for the welfare of the Advocate clerks associated with the District Courts.

¶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

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

¶33

2/3

¶34

W.P.(MD)No. 9839 of 2020

¶35

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.

¶36

Assistant Registrar (crl.side)

¶37

// True Copy //

¶38

/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶39

pmu

¶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

The Assistant Director, Tamilnadu Mines and Minerals, Ramanathapuram District. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Collectorate, Ramanathapuram District. 3. The Inspector of Police, Periyur police station, Ramanathapuram District. 4. The Village Administrative Officer, Muthukulathur Group Village, Ramanathapuram.

¶43

Copy To:

¶44

1.The High Court Legal Services Committee, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 2.The Registrar (Judicial), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶45

+1 CC to M/s.N. SARAVANAN, Advocate ( SR-14805[F] dated 24/08/2020 ) +1 CC to M/s.Government Pleader ( SR-14896[F] dated 25/08/2020 )

¶46

W.P.(MD)No. 9839 of 2020 24.08.2020

¶47

KB(27.08.2020) 3P 9C

¶48

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

¶49

3/3

P. Sathiyendiran v. the Assistant Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Sathiyendiran v. the Assistant 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.Periyasamy Vs the Superintending Engineer

Mani Nagappa Motors Madurai Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Regional Transport Officer

K.Soundarammal Vs the District Collector

Adaikalasamy Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

M.v.Chellaiah Vs the District Collector/Inspector of Panchayat

R.M.Veerappa Chettiar Vs the District Collector