Allowed

Seenivasan v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC22 Jan 2021WP(MD)/639/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, in a writ petition filed for the release of a seized lorry, allowed the petition and directed the respondents to release the vehicle subject to undertaking that the petitioner would not alienate it, produce documents, and cooperate with investigations.

What did the court decide?

Direct release of the seized lorry subject to undertaking to not alienate it and produce documents.

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

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.639 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 22.01.2021

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.639 of 2021

¶7

Seenivasan ... Petitioner

¶8

-Vs-

¶9

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Srivaigundam Taluk, Thoothukudi District.

¶10

2.The Assistant Director, Mines and Minerals Department, Thoothukudi District.

¶11

3.The Inspector of Police, Serakulam Police Station, Thoothukudi District. (Crime No.121 of 2020) ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to release the Ashok Leyland Lorry belongs to the petitioner bearing Reg.No.TN-36-J-3646 which was seized on 30.12.2020 by the second respondent.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Veilkani Raju For Respondents : Mr.B.Bhagawathi, Government Advocate.

¶14

ORDER

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

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

¶18

1/3

¶19

W.P.(MD)No.639 of 2021

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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:-

¶23

“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.

¶24

6.The petitioner's counsel states that the petitioner has transported red sand by using vehicle and is having valid permit.

¶25

Therefore, I refrain from imposing any cost. Recording the submission of the petitioner's counsel on instructions, I direct release of the petition mentioned vehicle subject to the following conditions :

¶26

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

¶27

b) 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 relevant documents and if the vehicle is a new one, sales invoice can be produced.

¶28

c) 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

¶29

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ be conducted by the respondents.

¶30

2/3

¶31

W.P.(MD)No.639 of 2021

¶32

8.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.

¶33

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

¶34

// True Copy //

¶35

rmi

¶36

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.

¶37

¶38

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Srivaigundam Taluk, Thoothukudi District.

¶39

2.The Assistant Director, Mines and Minerals Department, Thoothukudi District.

¶40

3.The Inspector of Police, Serakulam Police Station, Thoothukudi District.

¶41

+1 CC to SGP ( SR-2049[F] dated 25/01/2021 ) W.P.(MD)No.639 of 2021 22.01.2021 KM (03.02.2021) 3P 5C

¶42

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

¶43

3/3

Seenivasan v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seenivasan 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

Swaminathan. V.R. Vs The District Collector

Ramar Poosari. S Vs The Secretary to Govt.

Lal Bahadur Murugan.G Vs Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies

Sathishkumar.P Vs the Commissioner

Thangavel.a Vs the Commissioner

Uchimahali.S Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer