Allowed

Sudanthiraselvan v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC23 Feb 2021WP(MD)/3447/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petteritioner sought writ mandamus for release of a bullock cart seized by police. The court held it has power to direct release since the vehicle was not produced in court. Petitioner was granted interim custody upon payment of Rs. 1,000 non-refundable cost.

What did the court decide?

Release of the seized bullock cart upon payment of Rs.1,000 non-refundable cost to the Registrar.

Sudanthiraselvan Vs the Revenue… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.3447 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 23.02.2021

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.3447 of 2021

Sundanthiraselvan

... Petitioner

-Vs-

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer,

¶11

Revenue Divisional Office,

¶12

Pattukottai, Thanjavur District.

¶13

2.The Inspector of Police, Pattukottai Taluk Police Station,

¶14

Thanjavur District.

¶15

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

¶16

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 second respondent herein pertaining to the case in Cr.No.1394 of 2020 on the file of the second respondent herein and return the vehicle to the petitioner based on his representation dated 10.02.2021.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.Karunakaran.K.M

¶18

For Respondents : Mr.V.Anand,

¶19

Government Advocate ORDER

¶20

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.

¶21

2.The petition mentioned vehicle 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.

¶22

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

¶23

1/3

¶24

W.P.(MD)No.3447 of 2021

¶25

3.It has been authoritatively held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283 (Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and Others V. State of Gujarat) that whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. That would not only serve any purpose but also result in loss of value.

¶26

4.Notwithstanding the registration of criminal cases, the vehicle in question is yet to be produced before the jurisdictional court. Therefore, the writ court is definitely possessed of the power to direct release of the vehicle. Neither the petitioner nor the vehicle is involved in any previous case of the same nature. The learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remit a sum of Rs.1,000/- as non refundable cost.

¶27

5.Shri.K.Veera Raghava Rao, I.A.S., Director of Employment and Training is presently working out a module for imparting training to visually impaired persons in type writing and stenography. The candidates will have to buy laptop and also type machine in braille system. The course may also involve expenditure. To enable the aforesaid Government Department to conduct the said programme so that at least some of the visually challenged persons can stand on their own feet with dignity, the Registrar (Administration) shall utilize the amount now directed to be deposited for the aforesaid purpose.

¶28

6.I direct release of the petition mentioned vehicle subject to the following condition :

¶29

a) The petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees Thousand only) to the account of the Registrar (Administration), Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, Madurai in Account No.6988563932, IFSC Code : IDIB000H040, Indian Bank, High Court Branch, Madurai. It will be a non refundable payment.

¶30

7.After completion of the aforesaid formalities, the 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. It is made clear that what I am granting is only interim custody of the vehicle. Other proceedings may go on.

¶31

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

¶32

2/3

¶33

W.P.(MD)No.3447 of 2021

¶34

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

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

Assistant Registrar ()

¶37

// True Copy //

¶38

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶39

ias

¶40

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.

¶41

¶42

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Pattukottai, Thanjavur District.

¶43

2.The Inspector of Police, Pattukottai Taluk Police Station, Thanjavur District.

¶44

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

¶45

Copy to :

¶46

The Registrar (Administration), Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶47

W.P.(MD)No.3447 of 2021 23.02.2021

¶48

KM (01.03.2021) 3P 5C

¶49

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

¶50

3/3

Sudanthiraselvan v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudanthiraselvan 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

Solai.C Vs State Rep.by

M/S.Prabhu Shipping Systems Vs Under Secretary to the Government of India

Kumaraguru Vs State Represented by The Inspector of Police

Ravichandran.C Vs the Managing Director

Adaikalam Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Karuppaiyan Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer