This writ petition sought a direction to release a seized TATA ACE van involved in PDS rice transport under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The court held that release powers vest with the designated/jurisdictional court, not the High Court, and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.04.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
W.P.No.10774 of 2021
K.Sathiskumar ...Petitioner
-vs-
1. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tiruvannamalai,
Tiruvannamalai District.
2. The Inspector of Police (CSCID-Chennai),
Tiruvannamalai Unit,
Tiruvannamalai Police Station,
Tiruvannamalai District.
Head Office at
Office of Civil Supplies CID,
EVR Periyar Building, First Floor B Wing,
No.474, Anna Salai, Nandanam,
Chennai 600 035 ...Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to release his TATA ACE Van bearing registration No.TN 04 AJ 3405 seized by the second respondent on 16.02.2021 to the petitioner forthwith based on the petitioner's representation dated 13.04.2021.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Vijaya Basker
For Respondents: Mr.R.A.S.Senthilvel Additional Government Pleader ORDER
The Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus seeking a direction to the the respondents to release the TATA ACE Van bearing registration No.TN 04 AJ 3405 seized by the second respondent on 16.02.2021 to the petitioner, based on his representation dated 13.04.2021.
"6. In the judgement referred above, the Division Bench has clearly indicated the difference between the seizure and confiscation particularly, in the light of the provisions governed under the enactment. Therefore the power of release is only available to the designated court. This is for the reason that confiscation involves a process and a release is not a matter of course being one of the option open to the court by considering the facts governing. If that is the position, this Court cannot interdict the same without going into the role assigned to the designated court and without taking note of the relevant provisions governing."
"5. When once a case is registered resulting in First Information Report, the only option available to the appellants is to produce it before the jurisdictional Court. This is for the
reason, in Section 6(A) both the main provision and the proviso do not facilitate the release of the vehicle. When once we hold that the appellants do not have the power of release of the vehicle, the consequence is that the vehicle can only be released by the jurisdictional Court. After all, the seizure has been made after the registration of the First Information Report. Thus, in the absence of any power or authority that is being available to the appellants even the reliance made on the instruction dated 21.02.2013 cannot be sustainable insofar any decision with respect to the release of the vehicle is concerned.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can direct the release of a vehicle seized for violation of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief for release of the vehicle under the current writ jurisdiction.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
3 provisions across 3 enactments
K.Sathiskumar
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruvannamalai
The Inspector of Police (CSCID-Chennai), Tiruvannamalai Unit
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
