Remanded

Jeya. S v. the Additional Superintendent of Police

Madras HC3 Dec 2021WP(MD)/21537/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioner challenged an order under Section 14(4) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 confiscating a vehicle. The Supreme Court quashed the order due to lack of reasons for rejecting representations and a blank date, directing the authority to redo it within a fortnight.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; First Respondent directed to redo order expeditiously, within 14 days.

Jeya. S Vs the Additional Superintendent of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.[MD]No.21537 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 03.12.2021

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

¶6

W.P.[MD]No.21537 of 2021

¶7

and

¶8

W.M.P.[MD]Nos.18091 & 18093 of 2021

S.Jeya

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Additional Superintendent of Police,

¶13

PEW – Ramanathapuram Police Station,

¶14

Ramanathapuram,

¶15

Ramanathapuram District.

¶16

2.The Inspector of Police, Pamban Police Station, Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents

¶17

P RAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings 54-01/parimuthal/Thu.Kaa.ka/Ma.Vi.Aa.Pi/ Erama/2021 dated 23.07.2021 and quash the same as illegal, consequently, directing the first respondent to release TVS NTORQ bike bearing Reg.No.TN-65-AL-5022 seized by the second respondent on 17.06.2021.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Gokul

¶19

For Respondents : Mr.S.R.A.Ramachandran Additional Government Pleader

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

¶22

Mr.K.Gokul, learned Counsel for lone writ petitioner and Mr.S.R.A.Ramachandran, learned Counsel who accepts notice on behalf of both the respondents are before me, with the consent of both learned Counsel main writ petition is taken up.

¶23

2. In the captioned main writ petition, an order bearing Reference No.54-01/gwpKjy ; /J-fh.f/k.tp.m.gp/,uhk/2021 [undated] has been

¶24

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

¶25

1/4

¶26

W.P.[MD]No.21537 of 2021

¶27

called in question and the same shall be referred as 'impugned order'. However, the impugned order has been signed by the first respondent on 23.07.2021 and therefore, I shall construe that as the date of the impugned order.

¶28

3. Impugned order has been made under Section 14(4) of 'the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 (Tamil Nadu Act X of 1937)' [hereinafter 'said Act' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. It deals inter alia with confiscation of a vehicle. In the case on hand, a two-wheeler bearing Registration No.TN 65 AL 5022 has been confiscated on the basis that the same was used by another individual for transporting liquor sold in domestic outlets. The impugned order also says that a case has been registered vide Crime No.154/2021 under Section 4(1)(a) of said Act on the file of second respondent.

¶29

4. The matter turns on a very short point. As already alluded to supra, impugned order has been made under Section 14(4) of said Act. Clause (ii) of the first proviso to Section 14(4) reads as follows:

¶30

'Provided that, before passing an order of confiscation, the owner or the person from whom such animal, vessel, cart or other vehicle is seized, shall be given-

¶31

(i) a notice in writing informing him of the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate the animal, vessel, cart or other vehicle:

¶32

(ii) an opportunity of making a representation in writing within a reasonable time, not exceeding fourteen days, as may be specified in the notice, against the grounds of confiscation; and'

¶33

5. A perusal of the impugned order shows that a notice appears to have been given to the writ petitioner on 13.07.2021 and the writ petitioner has responded on 19.07.2021 but the impugned order merely says that the reasons set out by the noticee writ petitioner is not acceptable. The impugned order neither mentions what the reasons are nor as to why the same are not acceptable. Similarly in the penultimate paragraph of the impugned order the date on which the confiscated vehicle was produced before the Government for confiscation is blank. For better appreciation of this order, I deem it appropriate to extract and reproduce the impugned order, which reads as follows:

¶34

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

¶35

2/4

¶36

W.P.[MD]No.21537 of 2021

¶37

[Underlining made by this Court for highlighting, supplying emphasis and for ease of reference]

¶38

6. It is necessary that the impugned order mentions the reason for not accepting the objections of the writ petitioner however terse it may be but it cannot be silent. Likewise, the date being left blank is unacceptable.

¶39

7. The impugned order is set aside on the aforementioned two short points without expressing any further opinion on the merits of the confiscation. The first respondent is directed to redo the impugned order as expeditiously as the business of the first respondent would permit but in any event within a fortnight from today ie., on or before 17.12.2021.

¶40

8. Captioned Writ Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid manner with the above directive. Consequently, captioned Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are disposed of as closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

Assistant Registrar(CS-III)

¶43

// True Copy //

¶44

/ /2021

¶45

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶46

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

¶47

3/4

¶48

W.P.[MD]No.21537 of 2021

¶49

¶50

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.

¶51

¶52

1.The Additional Superintendent of Police, PEW – Ramanathapuram Police Station, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

¶53

2.The Inspector of Police, Pamban Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

¶54

+1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-37619[F] dated 07/12/2021 )

¶55

ORDER MADE IN W.P.[MD]No.21537 of 2021 03.12.2021

¶56

ks(CO) TR(10.12.2021) 4P 4C

¶57

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

¶58

4/4

Jeya. S v. the Additional Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jeya. S 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

Mohammed Durai Vs the Commissioner

Mr.K. Arumugam Asari Vs the Commissioner

Shahul Hameed I Vs the Chief Executive Officer

A/M.Harasabha Vimoshana Vs the District Collector

Ramesh N Vs the Joint Commissioner

Paramasivam Vs the Thasildar