Allowed

Jeya.M v. the Additional Superintendent of Police

Madras HC24 Jun 2021WP(MD)/10427/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court allowed a writ petition seeking quashment of a confiscation order passed under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act without a hearing. The Court quashed the order and remitted it to the jurisdictional authority to issue a hearing notice and pass fresh orders.

What did the court decide?

Impugned confiscation order quashed; matter remitted for issuing hearing notice and passing fresh orders; vehicle to be returned.

Jeya.M Vs the Additional Superintendent of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.10427 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 24.06.2021

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU W.P(MD)No.10427 of 2021 and W.M.P(MD)No.8107 of 2021

M.Jeya

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Additional Superintendant of Police, District Crime Branch, Prohibition and Excise Wing(in-charge), Ramanathapuram,

¶10

Ramanathapuram District.

¶11

2.The Inspector of Police, Prohibition and Excise Wing, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District. (Crime No.531 of 2021)

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in pursuant to the impugned confiscation order passed by the first respondent vide proceedings in 4501/Parimuthal/Thoo.Kaa.Ka/Ma.Vi.Aa.B/ dated 08.05.2021 and quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondents to release the petitioner's vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 65 AK 9932 forthwith.

¶14

For Petitioner : M/s.V.Muthukamatchi For Respondents : Mr.P.Thilak Kumar,

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in pursuant to the impugned order passed by the first respondent vide proceedings in 4501/Parimuthal/Thoo.Kaa.Ka/Ma.Vi.Aa.B/ dated 08.05.2021 and quash the same and to direct the respondents to release the petitioner's vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 65 AK 9932 forthwith.

¶17

The learned counsel for the petitioner would state that the petitioner is the owner of the two wheeler TVS NTORQ 125 bearing registration No.TN 65 AK 9932. The said vehicle was seized by the Inspector of Police Prohibition and Excise Wing, Ramanathpuram on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

1/3

¶19

W.P(MD)No.10427 of 2021

¶20

18.04.2021 as the same was using by her husband for carrying liquor bottles without permit. Thereafter, without issuing notice to the petitioner, who is the owner of the vehicle, the impugned order has been passed and therefore, there is violation of principles of natural justice and therefore, the impugned order may be set aside.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this Court to Section 14(4) of the Tamilnadu Prohibition Act, 1937. The provision reads as follows:-

¶22

“14.4. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub Sections (1) to (3), the Collector or other Prohibition Officer in -charge of the District or any other officer authorised by the State Government in that behalf, shall detain the animals, vessel, cart, or other vehicle used in the commission of an offence against this Act till the case is disposed of by the Court and notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974), no interim order regarding the disposal of such property shall be passed by the Court till the case is disposed of.”

¶23

The learned standing counsel for the respondents would state that the order under challenge in the writ petition is an order of confiscation passed under Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 and there is an appeal remedy available to the petitioner before the Sessions Court.

¶24

For that, the learned counsel for the petitioner would state that if he can demonstrate the violation of the principles of natural justice, then, the writ petition is maintainable.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶26

When this Court raised a query that as to whether the third requirement under the Act, namely reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter was provided to the petitioner herein, even after verifying the records, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents is not able to show any such hearing notice having been given to the petitioner herein.

¶27

8.In such view of the matter, the order impugned in the writ petition is quashed. The matter is remitted to the file of the jurisdictional authority for passing fresh orders. The jurisdictional authority will issue a hearing notice to the petitioner herein and thereafter, pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law. The respondents are directed to return the two wheeler to the petitioner herein. The petitioner through her counsel undertakes before this Court that she will not alienate the vehicle and that she will produce the vehicle as and when required. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ This undertaking will hold good till the confiscation proceedings

¶28

2/3

¶29

W.P(MD)No.10427 of 2021

¶30

are concluded. If this undertaking is breached, the petitioner will be visited with consequence of contempt of Court.

¶31

9.The Writ Petition is allowed on these terms. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

¶32

Assistant Registrar (CS-III)

¶33

// True Copy //

¶34

¶35

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.

¶36

To:

¶37

1.The Additional Superintendant of Police, District Crime Branch, Prohibition and Excise Wing(in-charge), Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

¶38

2.The Inspector of Police, Prohibition and Excise Wing, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

¶39

+1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-20301[F] dated 25/06/2021 )

¶40

Order made in

¶41

W.P(MD)No.10427 of 2021

¶42

Dated: 24.06.2021

¶43

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

¶44

3/3

Jeya.M v. the Additional Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jeya.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

Gurusamy.S Vs the Commercial Tax Officer/State Tax Officer

A.Ravi Vs the Banking Ombudsman

M/S.Yamuna Impex, Vs the Commissioner of Customs

Sugumar.S Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Mathivanan.N Vs the Income Tax Officer

Suresh.C Vs the District Collector