Allowed

Subhash v. The District Revenue Officer

Madras HC6 Jan 2023WP(MD)/331/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court allowed a writ petition under Article 226 directing the respondent authorities to grant interim custody of a seized vehicle to the petitioner, citing Supreme Court precedents regarding unnecessary retention of seized vehicles, subject to a security deposit and specific undertakings.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to grant interim custody of the seized vehicle to petitioner subject to payment of Rs.5,000 deposit and undertaking.

Subhash Vs The District Revenue Officer — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

1 W.P.(MD)NO.331 OF 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 06.01.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.331 of 2023

Subhash

... Petitioner

Vs.

The District Revenue Officer, Theni District,

¶11

Theni.

¶12

The Inspector of Police, CSCID-Uthamapalayam police station, Theni District, Crime No.234 of 2022. ... Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to release the TATA Spacio vehicle bearing registration No.KL 01 AA 8200 to the Petitioner.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.E.Satheesh

¶15

For R-1 : Mr.M.Lingadurai, Special Government Pleader. For R-2 : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh, Government Advocate (Crl. Side). * * *

¶16

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

¶17

1/6

¶18

2 W.P.(MD)NO.331 OF 2023

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶21

The petition mentioned vehicle was seized in

¶22

connection with Crime No.234 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 proceedings. In this case we are concerned only with the issue of granting interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

2/6

¶28

3 W.P.(MD)NO.331 OF 2023

¶29

held as follows:-

¶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 respondents are is directed to grant interim custody of the said vehicle to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:-

¶32

a) The petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards cost in the bank account number of the Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri (Ac No.30345829704, IFSC Code – SBIN0000832, State Bank of India, Dharmapuri Main Branch). It will be a non-refundable payment. The learned Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri is directed to spend the

¶33

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

¶34

3/6

¶35

4 W.P.(MD)NO.331 OF 2023

¶36

amount now deposited for enhancing the infrastructure of the courts in Dharmapuri District.

¶37

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

¶38

c) The petitioner shall produce all the documents pertaining to the ownership of the seized vehicle. If the petitioner is an agreement holder, he can produce the relevant xerox copies.

¶39

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.

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

4/6

¶43

5 W.P.(MD)NO.331 OF 2023

¶44

petition will not have any bearing on the confiscation proceedings that may be initiated by the authorities. No costs.

¶45

06.01.2023

¶46

NCS : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No PMU

¶47

Note : Issue order copy on 06.01.2023.

¶48

To:

¶49

The District Revenue Officer, Theni District, Theni.

¶50

The Inspector of Police, CSCID-Uthamapalayam police station, Theni District, Crime No.234 of 2022.

¶51

Copy to :

¶52

The Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri.

¶53

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

¶54

5/6

¶55

6 W.P.(MD)NO.331 OF 2023

¶56

G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.

¶57

PMU

¶58

W.P.(MD)No.331 of 2023

¶59

06.01.2023

¶60

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

¶61

6/6

Subhash v. The District Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash 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

Peer Mohammed.a Vs The Thasildar

Abdullah.S Vs The Thasildar

Selvam.R Vs The District Revenue Officer

Ramar Vs The District Collector

Ganesan Vs The District Revenue Officer

Muthuraman Vs The District Revenue Officer