Dismissed

Vijayakumar.M v. the Additional Superintendent of Police

Madras HC22 Jun 2021WP(MD)/10398/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court granted a Writ of Mandamus for the release of the petitioner's seized two-wheeler, subject to a deposit, guardianship undertaking, and a deadline for the police to conclude adjudication proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Release of the seized Splendor Pro two-wheeler (Reg. No. TN-79-4521) subject to a Rs. 5,000 deposit and undertaking to produce the vehicle.

Vijayakumar.M Vs the Additional Superintendent of Police — Property and Title | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.10398 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 22.06.2021

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU

¶6

W.P(MD)No.10398 of 2021

M.Vijayakumar

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Additional Superintendent of Police, (Prohibition Enforcement Wing),

¶11

Tenkasi District, Tenkasi.

¶12

2.The Inspector of Police,

¶13

Puliyankudi Police Station, Tenkasi District. ... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents, to release the petitioner's vehicle ie., two wheeler, Splendor Pro, bearing Registration No.TN-79-4521, seized by the 2^nd respondent Police on 01.05.2021, on the basis of the petitioner's representation, dated 15.06.2021.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.T. Veerakumar

¶16

For Respondents : Mr. P.Thilakkumar Government Advocate

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This Writ Petition has been filed praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents, to release the petitioner's vehicle ie., two wheeler, Splendor Pro, bearing Registration No.TN-79-4521, seized by the 2^nd respondent Police on 01.05.2021, on the basis of the petitioner's representation, dated 15.06.2021.

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for both sides.

¶20

The petitioner's vehicle was seized in connection with illegal transportation of Liquor bottles. The enquiry in this regard is still pending. The learned counsel for the petitioner affirms before this Court that the petitioner's vehicle was not involved in any previous incident of similar nature.

¶21

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

¶22

1/3

¶23

W.P(MD)No.10398 of 2021

¶24

4.The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is placed on record. If this submission turns out to be false, the order now passed by this Court would stand automatically recalled and the petitioner will be visited with serious consequences. I am of the view that no purpose will be served by keeping the vehicle in question in the custody of the respondents. If the vehicle is kept in open space and exposed to sun light and rain, it would lose its value. Therefore, the respondents are directed to release the said vehicle subject to the following conditions.

¶25

5 Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions.

¶26

“(i)The petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand Only) to the credit of Government of Tamil Nadu, CMPRF in IOB, Secretariat Branch, Chennai-9 (Account No.11720 10000 00070, IFSCCode: IOBA0001172), without prejudice to his rights and contentions;

¶27

(ii)The petitioner is directed to produce all the documents pertaining to the ownership of the seized vehicle. (iii)The petitioner is directed to file an affidavit of undertaking that he will cause production of the vehicle in question before the competent/concerned respondent ( as the case may be) as and when called for and further, he will not alienate the vehicle in question till the appropriate proceedings initiated are completed;

¶28

(iv) On compliance of the above conditions, the second respondent is directed to release the seized vehicle viz., two wheeler, Splendor Pro, bearing Registration No.TN-79-4521, to the petitioner.

¶29

(v)The first respondent is directed to pass final orders in the adjudication proceedings, if any, within a period of 45 days;

¶30

(vi)This order for the release of the vehicle can be pressed into service by the petitioner only if the vehicle is not in the custody of the criminal Court. If the vehicle is in the custody of the concerned criminal Court of appropriate jurisdiction, then option is given to the petitioner to approach the concerned Judicial Magistrate to get release of the vehicle, by filing necessary application in the manner known to law https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and in accordance with law; and

¶31

2/3

¶32

W.P(MD)No.10398 of 2021

¶33

(vii)Inasmuch as the vehicle viz., two wheeler, Splendor Pro, bearing Registration No.TN-79-4521, is seized by the second respondent on 01.05.2021, the aforesaid order is to be complied with within a period of one week, if no order of adjudication is passed as on today.

¶34

No costs.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

Assistant Registrar(CS-)

¶37

// True Copy //

¶38

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶39

MPK

¶40

Note :(i) 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

¶42

1.The Additional Superintendent of Police, (Prohibition Enforcement Wing), Tenkasi District, Tenkasi.

¶43

2.The Inspector of Police, Puliyankudi Police Station, Tenkasi District.

¶44

Copy to

¶45

The Joint Secretary to Government of Treasurer, Chief Minister's Public Relief Fund, Secretariate, Chennai 600 009.

¶46

+1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-20054[F] dated 23/06/2021 ) +1 CC to M/s.T.VEERAKUMAR, Advocate ( SR-20079[F] dated 24/06/2021 )

¶47

W.P(MD)No.10398 of 2021 22.06.2021

¶48

SE(CO) TR(29.06.2021) 3P 6C

¶49

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

¶50

3/3

Vijayakumar.M v. the Additional Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijayakumar.M v. the Additional Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Udaiyappan Vs the Commissioner

Vadamalai, Vs the Commissioner

Sahul Hameed, Vs the Commissioner

Nithyakumar, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

P.F.Sumaiyya Banu, Vs Syed Mohammed Maheen

Branch Manager Vs R.Murugasingaraj