Allowed

Murugan v. The District Revenue Officer

Madras HC7 Dec 2022WP(MD)/27628/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed for interim custody of a seized lorry allegedly used for illegal PDS rice transport. Court directed release of vehicle subject to payment of non-refundable fee, adherence to conditions, and submission of ownership documents.

What did the court decide?

Directing the first respondent to grant interim custody of the seized vehicle to the petitioner subject to non-refundable payment and specific conditions regarding its use and prosecution.

Murugan Vs The District Revenue Officer — Property and Title | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.27628 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 07.12.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.27628 of 2022

Murugan

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Revenue Officer, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

¶11

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

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to release the Ashok Leyland Lorry vehicle bearing registration No.KL-40C-4446 seized by the second respondent on 06.11.2022 to the petitioner.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Sathish Kumar

¶15

For Respondents : Mrs.S.Jayapriya,

¶16

Government Advocate for R1. Mr.S.Manikandan, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) for R2.

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

1/6

¶19

W.P(MD)No.27628 of 2022

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

¶22

The petition mentioned vehicle was seized in connection with Crime No.326 of 2022 registered on the file of the second respondent.

¶23

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.

¶24

It is of course open to the respondent authority to initiate confiscation

¶25

proceedings. In this case we are concerned only with the issue of granting interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner.

¶26

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:-

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

2/6

¶29

W.P(MD)No.27628 of 2022

¶30

“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.

¶31

Therefore, the first respondent is directed to grant interim custody of

¶32

the said vehicle to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:-

¶33

a) The petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) towards cost in the bank account of Government Leprosy Home, Y.Pudhupatti, Madurai (Savings Account No.80080760197, IFSC Code : SBIN0002246 State Bank of India, Othakadai Branch, Madurai). It will be a nonrefundable payment. The Trust shall utilise the said amount for the benefits of the inmates of the Home.

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

c) 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.

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

3/6

¶39

W.P(MD)No.27628 of 2022

¶40

7.The petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner's name is not figuring in the R.C.Book, because he is only an agreement holder. The original documents are with the financier. The respondents nevertheless are directed to return the same to the petitioner upon fulfilment of the conditions.

¶41

8.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. I make it clear that allowing of this writ petition will not have any bearing on the confiscation proceedings that may be initiated by the authorities. No costs.

¶42

07.12.2022 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No ias To:

¶43

1.The District Revenue Officer, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

¶44

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

¶45

4/6

¶46

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶47

W.P(MD)No.27628 of 2022

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/6

¶49

W.P(MD)No.27628 of 2022

¶50

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

¶51

ias

¶52

W.P(MD)No.27628 of 2022

¶53

07.12.2022

¶54

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶55

6/6

Murugan v. The District Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murugan 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Ramkumar, Vs the Registrar

P.Victor Selvaraj Vs the Chief Educational Officer

Mr.Manuvel Selvanayagam Vs the Chief Educational Officer

S.Guru Matheesh Vs the Principal

M. Irshad Kamil Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Parameshwari Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer cum Maintenance Tribunal