The Court disposed of a writ petition seeking release of a seized lorry. Directing the petitioner to deposit Rs.25,000 and prove ownership, the Court ordered release by the Revenue Officer unless the case is pending with the criminal court.
Release of the seized TATA lorry upon deposit of Rs.25,000 and production of ownership documents.
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 : 07.09.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN
W.P.NO.18719 OF 2021
V. Muniyappan .. Petitioner
Versus
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to release the petitioner's TATA Lorry bearing Registration No. TN.73.E.3181 forthwith which was seized by the second respondent on 04.07.2021 keeping under the custody of first respondent by considering the petitioner's representation dated 04.07.2021.
O R D E R
The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to release the petitioner's TATA Lorry bearing Registration No. TN.73.E.3181 seized by the second respondent to him.
rice illegally. Therefore, this Court, at this stage, is not expressing any view on the contentions made by the petitioner against the allegations made, as it is for the Adjudicating Authority to consider and decide. However, considering the fact that the vehicle was seized as early as on 04.07.2021 and the same is kept idle thereby exposing it to sun and rain, which undoubtedly would diminish its value, this Court is of the view that the following order will protect the interest of both parties:
(a) The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand only) before the first respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(b) The petitioner shall appear in person and produce all the relevant documents proving the ownership of the vehicle for verification of the authority.
(c) On receipt of payment as stated supra and also on being satisfied with the ownership of the vehicle, the first respondent shall release the subject vehicle forthwith.
(d) The petitioner shall not use the said vehicle for any unlawful purpose and also shall not alienate the same during the pendency of the proceedings.
(e) It is open to the respondent to initiate proceedings in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders on merits, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(f) If no such order is passed within the time stipulated therein, the amount so paid by the petitioner shall be refunded to the petitioner.
(g) This order for release of the vehicle can be availed of by the petitioner, if the vehicle is not in the custody of criminal Court. If the vehicle is in the custody of the criminal Court, it is open to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate to get release of the vehicle by filing appropriate application and the same can be considered in accordance with law.
direction.
No costs.
Assistant Registrar(CS IX)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
dhk
To
W.P. No. 18719 of 2021
JP II(CO) PM/05/10/2021
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a vehicle seized on allegations of illegal activity should be released upon deposit of security and proof of ownership pending adjudication.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Muniyappan
The District Revenue Officer, Dharmapuri
The Inspector of Police, CSCID Dharmapuri
R. MAHADEVAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
