Allowed

Vairam v. The District Revenue Officer

Madras HC16 Jun 2022WP(MD)/11932/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed a writ petition seeking interim custody of a seized lorry allegedly used for illegal PDS rice transport. Directed the first respondent to release the vehicle to the petitioner upon payment of non-refundable costs and production of undertaking, citing Supreme Court precedent, while clarifying this does not affect future confiscation proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed. First respondent directed to grant interim custody of the seized lorry to the petitioner upon compliance with conditions: payment of Rs.5,000 costs, undertaking not to alienate,

Vairam Vs The District Revenue Officer — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.11932 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 16.06.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.11932 of 2022

Vairam

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Revenue Officer, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶11

2.The Inspector of Police,

¶12

Civil Supplies Crime Investigation Department, Madurai. ... Respondents

¶13

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the first respondent to release the Ashok Leyland Taurus Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-47-M-2939 seized by the second respondent on 12.05.2022 to the petitioner.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar For Respondents : Mr.M.Sarangan, Additional Government Pleader.

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶17

The petition mentioned vehicle was seized in connection with Crime No.94 of 2022 registered on the file of the second respondent.

¶18

The petition mentioned vehicle is presently in the custody of the first respondent. The vehicle is said to have been used for illegally transporting PDS rice.

¶19

It is of course open to the respondent authority to initiate confiscation proceedings. In this case we are concerned only with the issue of granting interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner.

¶20

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

¶21

1/3

¶22

W.P(MD)No.11932 of 2022

¶23

No purpose will be served in keeping the vehicle under the custody of the respondents. 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

¶25

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.

¶26

Therefore, the first respondent is directed to grant interim custody of the said vehicle to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:-

¶27

a) The petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards costs to the credit of the Tamil Nadu Legal Services Authority, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. It will be a non-refundable payment.

¶28

b) The petitioner shall not alienate or encumber the vehicle till the proceedings are completed.

¶29

c) The petitioner shall produce all the documents pertaining to the ownership of the seized vehicle.

¶30

d) As and when the respondents call for the vehicle for enquiry, the petitioner has to produce the vehicle in question and he shall cooperate with the enquiry to be conducted by the respondents.

¶31

Upon completion of these formalities, the respondents shall grant interim custody of the vehicle forthwith to the petitioner without any delay. If this undertaking given by the petitioner is breached, the petitioner will not be entitled to interim custody of the vehicle in future. The Writ Petition is allowed accordingly.

¶32

I make it clear that allowing of this writ petition will not have any bearing to the confiscation proceedings that may be initiated by the authorities.

¶33

// True Copy //

¶34

ias

¶35

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

¶36

2/3

¶37

W.P(MD)No.11932 of 2022

¶38

To:

¶39

1.The District Revenue Officer, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶40

2.The Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies Crime Investigation Department, Madurai.

¶41

COPY TO:-

¶42

THE OFFICER INCHARGE, TAMIL NADU LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶43

+1 CC to M/s.T. LENIN KUMAR, Advocate (SR-26325[F] dated 17/06/2022)

¶44

+1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP ( SR-26529[F] dated 17/06/2022 )

¶45

W.P(MD)No.11932 of 2022 16.06.2022

¶46

SJ(CO) GC(17.06.2022) 3P 6C

¶47

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

¶48

3/3

Vairam v. The District Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vairam v. The District Revenue 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

A.Alagu Vs Subramanian

S. P. Pokkisam Vs S. Vadivelu

Balachandran.M Vs the Tashildhar

Lakshmi.G Vs The District Collector

Satheesh Vs The Regional Passport Officer

Bhavani Devi.R Vs The District Collector