The Madras High Court, on an application for a Writ of Mandamus, directed the release of a bullock cart seized by police. The court held that retaining the vehicle was pointless and ordered its immediate release without delay.
Release of the petrol/motor mentioned vehicle to the petitioner forthwith without any delay.
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.
W.P.(MD)No.174 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07.01.2021 CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)No.174 of 2021
Manikandan
... Petitioner
Vs
1.The Assistant Director of Geology and Mining, Pudukottai District, Pudukottai.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Aranthangi, Pudukottai District.
3.The Inspector of Police, Aranthangi Police Station, Pudukottai District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to release the petitioner's bullock cart seized by the third respondent on 12.11.2020 to the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar For Respondents : Mr.M.Rajarajan, Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel on either side. By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
2.The petitioner claims to be the owner of the petition mentioned vehicle. The petitioner's counsel states that till date, the vehicle in question has not been produced before the jurisdictional court.
3.It has been held time and again that keeping the vehicle in the custody of the respondents is not going to serve any purpose. On the other hand, it will contribute to loss of value. 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. Therefore, the Writ Court will always have the power to direct release of vehicle.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the vehicle has not been involved in any previous case of the same nature. He also submitted that the petitioner is also not having any previous case.
1/2
W.P.(MD)No.174 of 2021
5.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:-
“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.
6.Recording the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions, I direct release of the petition mentioned vehicle. The respondents shall release the petition mentioned vehicle forthwith without any delay.
7.The Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.
ias
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.
To
1.The Assistant Director of Geology and Mining, Pudukottai District, Pudukottai.
3.The Inspector of Police, Aranthangi Police Station, Pudukottai District.
SRK(CO)
KB(18.01.2021) 2P 5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
2/2
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the seized bullock cart should be released to the petitioner pending the criminal investigation.
Whether keeping the vehicle in police custody serves any purpose.
Whether a Magistrate can pass orders for release on bond guarantee pending hearing.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and Others v. State of GujaratExplained¶5
(2002) 10 SCC 283 (Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and Others V. State of Gujarat) · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Manikandan
The Assistant Director of Geology and Mining, Pudukottai District
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Aranthangi
The Inspector of Police, Aranthangi Police Station
G.R. Swaminathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
