Allowed

Ganesan v. The District Revenue Officer

Madras HC6 Jan 2023WP(MD)/335/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought interim custody of a Mahindra Maxi Truck seized by police for allegedly transporting PDS rice. The High Court granted interim custody to the owner upon payment of a cost and submission of an undertaking, relying on Supreme Court precedent that seized vehicles should not remain at police stations indefinitely.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to grant interim custody of the seized Mahindra Maxi Truck to the petitioner upon payment of Rs. 3,000 and fulfillment of specified conditions.

Ganesan Vs The District Revenue Officer — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

1 W.P.(MD)NO.335 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.335 of 2023

¶7

Ganesan ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The District Revenue Officer, Pudukottai District, Pudukottai.

¶10

The Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies Crime Investigation Department, Pudukottai. ... Respondents

¶11

Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st respondent to release the Mahindra Maxi Truck bearing registration number TN 20 BW 2125 seized by the second respondent on 13.12.2022 to the petitioner.

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

1/6

¶15

2 W.P.(MD)NO.335 OF 2023

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶18

The petition mentioned vehicle was seized in

¶19

connection with Crime No.253 of 2022 registered on the file of the second respondent.

¶20

The petition mentioned vehicle is presently in the

¶21

custody of the second respondent. The vehicle is said to have been used for illegally transporting PDS rice.

¶22

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.

¶23

No purpose will be served in keeping the vehicle

¶24

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:-

¶25

2/6

¶26

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

¶27

3 W.P.(MD)NO.335 OF 2023

¶28

“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.

¶29

Therefore, the second respondent is directed to

¶30

grant interim custody of the said vehicle to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:-

¶31

a) The petitioner shall pay a sum of

¶32

Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three 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 nonrefundable 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.335 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

¶40

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.

¶41

Upon completion of these formalities, the

¶42

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

¶43

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

¶44

4/6

¶45

5 W.P.(MD)NO.335 OF 2023

¶46

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

¶47

06.01.2023

¶48

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶49

pnn

¶50

To:

¶51

The District Revenue Officer, Pudukottai District, Pudukottai.

¶52

The Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies Crime Investigation Department, Pudukottai.

¶53

Copy to :

¶54

The Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri.

¶55

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

¶56

5/6

¶57

6 W.P.(MD)NO.335 OF 2023

¶58

G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.

¶59

pnn

¶60

W.P.(MD)No.335 of 2023

¶61

06.01.2023

¶62

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

¶63

6/6

Ganesan v. The District Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesan 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

Subhash Vs The District Revenue Officer

Muthuraman Vs The District Revenue Officer