Allowed

Chandra Sekar v. The District Collector

Madras HC19 Jan 2021WP(MD)/656/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court directed the police to release a seized vehicle to the owner subject to undertakings not to alienate it and to produce documents, relying on Supreme Court precedent.

What did the court decide?

The seized vehicle was directed to be released to the petitioner upon deposit of Rs. 15,000 and furnishing of undertaking to non-alienation, production of documents, and cooperation in future enquirie

Chandra Sekar Vs The District Collector — Property and Title | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.656 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.01.2021 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)No.656 of 2021

Chandra Sekar

... Petitioner

-Vs-

1.The District Collector, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur.

¶8

2.The Assistant Director, Department of Mines and Minerals, Thanjavur District.

¶9

3.The Inspector of Police, Town East Police Station, Thanjavur District. ... Respondents

¶10

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to release the petitioner's lorry with bearing registration No.TN 30 P 9261 from their custody.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Azhageson For Respondents : Mr.C.Ramesh Special Government Pleader

¶12

ORDER

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

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

¶17

1/3

¶18

W.P.(MD)No.656 of 2021

¶19

any previous case.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

“17.In our view, whatever be the situation, it

¶23

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

¶25

already deposited a sum of Rs.15,000/-.

¶26

Therefore, I refrain from imposing any cost. Recording the

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

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.

¶30

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 be conducted by the respondents.

¶31

8.After completion of the aforesaid formalities, the

¶32

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

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

¶34

2/3

¶35

W.P.(MD)No.656 of 2021

¶36

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

¶37

Sd/Assistant Registrar (CS-I) // True Copy //

¶38

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶39

rmi 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. To 1.The District Collector, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur. 2.The Assistant Director, Department of Mines and Minerals, Thanjavur District. 3.The Inspector of Police, Town East Police Station, Thanjavur District. +1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-1392[F] dated 20/01/2021 ) W.P.(MD)No.656 of 2021 19.01.2021 KUN(CO) KB(27.01.2021) 3P 5C

¶40

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

¶41

3/3

Chandra Sekar v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandra Sekar v. The District Collector

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

Ameer Hamsa Abdulla Vs The Regional Passport Officer

Periyasamy Vs The Inspector of Police

S. Haja Allaudin Vs the District Collector

Vallinayagam. K Vs The Assistant Director

Kumaresan Vs the District Collector

Kulaikathan, Vs the Co-Operative Tribunal