Allowed

Kannan v. The District Revenue Officer

Madras HC19 Jan 2023WP(MD)/997/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In W.P(MD)No.997 of 2023, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court granted interim custody of a vehicle seized for illegally transporting PDS rice to the petitioner, directing the payment of a non-refundable fee and subjecting the vehicle to production upon enquiry, while clarifying no impact on future confiscation proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Interim custody of the seized Maruti Omni vehicle granted to the petitioner subject to payment of Rs. 5,000, production of documents, and undertaking to produce the vehicle for enquiry.

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

¶1

W.P(MD)No.997 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 19.01.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.997 of 2023

Kannan

... Petitioner

1.The District Revenue Officer, District Revenue Office, Tenkasi.

¶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 to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to release the Maruti Omni Vehicle bearing Registration No. TN-69-S-3269 seized by the second respondent on 29.12.2022 by considering the petitioner's representation dated 06.01.2023.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Mathavaselvam

¶15

For Respondents : Mr.G.Suriyananth

¶16

Additional Government Pleader for R.1

¶17

Mr.R.Sivakumar

¶18

Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for R.2

¶19

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

¶20

1/5

¶21

W.P(MD)No.997 of 2023

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the second respondent.

¶24

The petition mentioned vehicle was seized in connection with Crime No.399 of 2020 registered on the file of the second respondent.

¶25

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

¶26

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.

¶27

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:-

¶28

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

¶29

2/5

¶30

W.P(MD)No.997 of 2023

¶31

“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.

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

b) The learned Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri is directed to spend the amount now deposited for enhancing the infrastructure of the Courts in Dharmapuri District.

¶36

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

¶37

d) 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.

¶38

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

¶39

3/5

¶40

¶41

W.P(MD)No.997 of 2023

¶42

e) 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.

¶43

Upon completion of these formalities, the respondents shall grant

¶44

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.

¶45

19.01.2023 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No MGA

¶46

Note: Issue Order Copy on 20.01.2023.

¶47

¶48

1.The District Revenue Officer, District Revenue Office, Tenkasi.

¶49

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

¶50

3.The Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri.

¶51

¶52

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

¶53

W.P(MD)No.997 of 2023

¶54

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

¶55

MGA

¶56

W.P(MD)No.997 of 2023

¶57

19.01.2023

¶58

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

¶59

5/5

Kannan v. The District Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kannan 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

Pambar Vaikkal (Nanthiyapuram Anicut Vs The Secretary to Government

Navaneethakrishnan Kopula Ragavan Vs The Director of Town and Country Planning

Karuppusamy Vs The Chairman

Arumugam.S Vs The State Rep by its

Tamilmaran Vs The District Collector

James Vs The Superintending Engineer