Allowed

Ramachandran v. The Assistant Director

Madras HC18 Jan 2021WP(MD)/490/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court allowed a writ petition for the release of a seized bullock cart. The court directed respondents to release the vehicle forthwith, citing that continued custody serves no purpose and leads to value loss pending the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to release the petitioner's bullock cart forthwith without delay.

Ramachandran Vs The Assistant Director — Property and Title | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.490 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18.01.2021 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)No.490 of 2021

... Petitioner

Ramachandran

1.The Assistant Director, Geology and Mining Department, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur.

¶7

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Pattukkottai, Thanjavur District.

¶8

3.The Inspector of Police, Peravoorani Police Station, Thanjavur District. In Crime No.974 of 2020 ... 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 from their custody and to hand over the possession of bullock cart to him.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Muniyandi For Respondents : Ms.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 have the power to direct release of vehicle.

¶15

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

¶16

1/4

¶17

W.P.(MD)No.490 of 2021

¶18

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.

¶19

5.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2002)

¶20

10 SCC 283 (Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and Others V. State of Gujarat) has held as follows:-

¶21

“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.

¶22

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.

¶23

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

¶24

Assistant Registrar (CS II)

¶25

// True Copy //

¶26

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶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

¶30

1.The Assistant Director, Geology and Mining Department, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur.

¶31

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

¶32

2/4

¶33

W.P.(MD)No.490 of 2021

¶34

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Pattukkottai, Thanjavur District. 3.The Inspector of Police, Peravoorani Police Station, Thanjavur District. +1 CC to M/s.GP ( SR-1147[F] dated 19/01/2021 )

¶35

W.P.(MD)No.490 of 2021

¶36

KVN(CO) KK(27.01.2021) 3P 5C

¶37

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

¶38

3/4

Ramachandran v. The Assistant Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramachandran v. The Assistant Director

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

Selvaraj Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Karthick Vs The Government of India

Athilakshmi.K Vs The District Collector

Ameer Hamsa Abdulla Vs The Regional Passport Officer

Periyasamy Vs The Inspector of Police

S. Haja Allaudin Vs the District Collector