Allowed

Karuppaiah, v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC8 Jan 2021WP(MD)/274/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed the objection that the vehicle was not produced before the court. Relying on the Supreme Court, the court directed the release of the seized lorry after the petitioner paid Rs. 40,000 for welfare use, submitted ownership documents, and promised cooperation with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Release of the seized Tipper Lorry subject to payment of Rs. 40,000 for welfare use, document submission, and cooperation with investigations.

Karuppaiah, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer — Property and Title | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.01.2021 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)No.274 of 2021

¶4

Karuppaiah ... Petitioner

¶5

-Vs-

¶6

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Illuppur, Pudukkottai District.

¶7

2.The Inspector of Police, Karaiyur Police Station, Pudukkottai District.

¶8

3.The Assistant Director, Tamilnadu Mines and Minerals, Pudukkottai District. ... Respondents

¶9

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to release the petitioner's Tipper Lorry bearing Registration No.TN 46 M 1499, seized by the second respondent in connection with Crime No.317 of 2020, on 26.12.2020 and hand over to the petitioner based on the petitioner's representation dated 04.01.2021.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sathyachidambaram For Respondents : Mr.B.Bhagawathi Government Advocate.

¶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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ have the power to direct release of vehicle.

¶15

¶16

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. The petitioner undertakes to remit a sum of Rs.40,000/- as non refundable cost.

¶17

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:-

¶18

“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.

¶19

6.Recording the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions, I direct release of the petition mentioned vehicle subject to the following conditions :

¶20

a) The petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/(Rupees Forty Thousand only) in favour of the Superintendent, Government Observation Home, No.164, Kamarajar Salai, Madurai – 625 009, in Bank Account Number : 161401000024282, IFSC Code : IOBA0001614, Indian Overseas Bank, Teppakulam. It will be a non refundable payment.

¶21

b) The Superintendent of the Observation Home is directed to spend the said amount for the welfare of the institution or that of its inmates or towards the rehabilitation of its former inmates. The Superintendent shall submit a report to the Registrar (Administration), Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, Madurai indicating the exact deployment of funds. The bills and other relevant materials will be enclosed along with the report. The Chairman, Juvenile Justice Board, Madurai will oversee the process and ensure the end-use.

¶22

c) The petitioner shall not alienate or encumber the vehicle in question till the proceedings are completed.

¶23

d) The petitioner shall produce all the documents pertaining to the ownership of the seized vehicle. If the petitioner concerned is an agreement holder and the R.C book is with the financier, he or she can be permitted to produce the photocopies of the

¶24

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ relevant documents and if the vehicle is a new one, sales invoice can be produced.

¶25

¶26

e) As and when the respondents call for the vehicle for enquiry, the petitioner has to produce the vehicle in question and shall cooperate with the enquiry to be conducted by the respondents.

¶27

7.After completion of the aforesaid formalities, the

¶28

respondents shall release the petition mentioned vehicle forthwith without any delay. If the undertaking given by the petitioner is breached, the petitioner will not be entitled to interim release of the vehicle in future and the order passed by this Court will stand recalled and the vehicle in question will be taken back to custody and it will be released only after getting orders from this Court on such terms as this Court may deem it fit to impose.

¶29

8.The Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.

¶30

Assistant Registrar (CS II)

¶31

// True Copy //

¶32

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶33

rmi

¶34

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.

¶35

¶36

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Illuppur, Pudukkottai District.

¶37

2.The Inspector of Police, Karaiyur Police Station, Pudukkottai District.

¶38

3.The Assistant Director, Tamilnadu Mines and Minerals, Pudukkottai District.

¶39

Copy to:

¶40

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1.The Superintendent, Government Observation Home, No.164, Kamarajar Salai, Madurai – 625 009.

¶41

¶42

2.The Registrar (Administration), Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, Madurai. +1 CC to M/s.GP ( SR-953[F] dated 18/01/2021 )

¶43

W.P.(MD)No.274 of 2021 08.01.2021

¶44

KVN(CO) KK(21.01.2021) 4P 7C

¶45

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

Karuppaiah, v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karuppaiah, v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tvl. Anbu Agency, Vs The Deputy State Tax Officer

Udhayakumar Vs the Government of India

Manikandan, Vs the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining

Sellamuthu at Selvamuthu Vs the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining

Thangeswaran.G Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Annamayil.N Vs The Tahsildar