Allowed

Sellamuthu at Selvamuthu v. the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining

Madras HC8 Jan 2021WP(MD)/275/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This disposal concerns a writ petition seeking release of a seized bullock cart. The court held that keeping seized vehicles in police custody without bringing them to court is useless and causes loss of value. Following Supreme Court guidance, the order directs immediate release of the vehicle pending investigation.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to release the seized bullock cart forthwith without any delay.

Sellamuthu at Selvamuthu Vs the Assistant… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.275 of 2021

¶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.275 of 2021

¶4

Sellamuthu @ Selvamuthu

¶5

... Petitioner

¶6

¶7

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

¶8

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,

¶9

Aranthangi,

¶10

Pudukottai District.

¶11

3.The Inspector of Police, Nagudi Police Station, Pudukottai District.

¶12

4.The Deputy Tahsildar, Manamelkudi Taluk, Pudukottai District. ... Respondents

¶13

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 23.12.2020 to the petitioner.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar For Respondents : Mr.B.Bhagawathi Government Advocate

¶15

ORDER

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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

¶19

1/6

¶20

W.P.(MD)No.275 of 2021

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

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:-

¶24

“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.

¶25

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.

¶26

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

¶27

rmi

¶28

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.

¶29

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

¶30

2/6

¶31

W.P.(MD)No.275 of 2021

¶32

¶33

1.The Assistant Director of Geology and Mining,
Pudukottai District, Pudukottai.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Aranthangi, Pudukottai District.
3.The Inspector of Police, Nagudi Police Station, Pudukottai District.
4.The Deputy Tahsildar, Manamelkudi Taluk, Pudukottai District.
+1 CC to SPL GP ( SR-976[F] dated 18/01/2021 )
W.P.(MD)No.275 of 2021
08.01.2021
VB (22.01.2021) 3P 6C

¶34

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

¶35

3/6

Sellamuthu at Selvamuthu v. the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sellamuthu at Selvamuthu 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

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

Thangeswaran.G Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Annamayil.N Vs The Tahsildar

Karuppaiah, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer