Allowed

Raja v. the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining

Madras HC10 Feb 2021WP(MD)/2318/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Justice G.R. Swaminathan allowed a writ petition where the petitioner claimed ownership of a seized bullock cart. Citing the Supreme Court, the court held that retaining the vehicle served no purpose as it was not in the judicial process and was liable to lose value. The respondent was directed to release the vehicle forthwith.

What did the court decide?

The respondents were directed to release the petitioner's bullock cart forthwith without any delay.

Raja Vs the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining — Madras HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.2318 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10.02.2021 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)No.2318 of 2021

¶4

Raja ... Petitioner

¶5

¶6

1.The Assistant Director of Geology and Mining, Pudukottai District, Pudukottai.

¶7

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Aranthangi, Pudukottai District.

¶8

3.The Inspector of Police, Avudaiyarkovil Police Station, Pudukottai District. ... Respondents

¶9

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 22.01.2021 to the petitioner.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar For Respondents : Mrs.S.Srimathy Special Government Pleader

¶11

ORDER

¶12

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.

¶13

2.The petitioner claims to be the owner of the petition mentioned vehicle. It was seized in connection with the petition mentioned crime number. The petitioner's counsel states that till date, the vehicle in question has not been produced before the jurisdictional court.

¶14

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.

¶15

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

¶16

1/2

¶17

W.P.(MD)No.2318 of 2021

¶18

any previous case.

¶19

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:-

¶20

“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.

¶21

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.

¶22

7.The Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. No costs. Sd/-

¶23

Assistant Registrar ()

¶24

// True Copy //

¶25

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶26

rmi

¶27

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

¶28

1..The Assistant Director of Geology and Mining, Pudukottai District, Pudukottai.

¶29

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Aranthangi,Pudukottai District.

¶30

3.The Inspector of Police,

¶31

Avudaiyarkovil Police Station, Pudukottai District.

¶32

+1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-4912[F] dated 15/02/2021 )

¶33

W.P.(MD)No.2318 of 2021 10.02.2021

¶34

KUN(CO)

¶35

KB(18.02.2021) 2P 5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶36

2/2

Raja v. the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raja v. the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pl. a. Sales Corporation Vs The Registering Authority -cum-

M/S. Standard Match Vs the Commissioner of Land

A.Jamal Mohammed, Vs the Assistant Engineer

Ramasamy.M Vs The Joint Commissioner

Nallamuthammal Vs the Assistant Engineer

Kanagaraj Vs the Assistant Director