Allowed

Rajesh v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police

Madras HC15 Mar 2024WP(MD)/628/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a confiscation order against the petitioner's vehicle seized in a prohibition case. The Court set aside the confiscation order for violation of natural justice, since it was passed without hearing the petitioner pending an earlier writ petition, and remanded the matter for fresh enquiry.

What did the court decide?

Impugned confiscation order dated 26.12.2023 set aside; matter remanded to first respondent for fresh enquiry after hearing petitioner; no costs.

Rajesh Vs The Deputy Superintendent of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.6202 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 15.03.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.628 of 2024 and WMP(MD) Nos.642 & 643 of 2024

Rajesh

... Petitioner

1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District.

¶11

2.The Inspector of Police, Kumbakonam Police Station, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District (Crime No. 629/2023). ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, by calling for the records of the Impugned Confiscation Order of the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.Con-65/PEW/TAN/2023 dated 26.12.2023 quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to release the petitioner's vehicle by branding name PIAGGIO Auto

¶13

1/5

¶14

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

¶15

W.P.(MD)No.6202 of 2024

¶16

bearing Registration No. TN 68-9712.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sathyachidambaram For Respondents : Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanidhi Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner has filed this writ petition as against the order of confiscation passed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Thanjavur/the first respondent on the petitioner's vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 6897 12. The second respondent has registered a case as against the petitioner as if this petitioner was in possession of 432 liquor bottles of 180 ml each in his vehicle in Crime No.629 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 4(1) (aa), 4(1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 and his vehicle was also seized. A show cause notice was issued by the Inspector/the second respondent, as against the same, the petitioner has filed a writ petition before this Court in WP(MD) No.31102 of 2023 that the second respondent is not having any authority to issue the show cause notice and that writ petition is still pending. Pending that writ

¶20

2/5

¶21

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

¶22

W.P.(MD)No.6202 of 2024

¶23

petition, the first respondent has passed the order of confiscation on 26.12.2023 and the same is under challenge in this writ petition.

¶24

2.Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanidhi, learned Government

¶25

Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner on 24.11.2023, the impugned confiscation order came to be passed and therefore, there is no need to interfere with the impugned order.

¶26

3.This Court considered the rival submissions made and

¶27

also perused the materials placed on record.

¶28

4.The competence of the second respondent in issuing the show cause notice was challenged by this petitioner in WP(MD) No. 31102 of 2023 and pending that writ petition, the first respondent without providing an opportunity and without hearing the petitioner has passed the impugned order. Therefore, on the ground of violation

¶29

of principles of natural justice, the impugned order is set aside. The 3/5

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.(MD)No.6202 of 2024

¶32

issue is remanded back to the first respondent for conducting an enquiry afresh. After providing an opportunity of hearing to this petitioner, the first respondent shall pass an order afresh.

¶33

5.With the above direction, this writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶34

15.03.2024

¶35

NCC : Yes / No. Index : Yes / No. Internet: Yes / No. vrn

¶36

Note: Issue order copy on 19.03.2024

¶37

¶38

1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District.

¶39

2.The Inspector of Police, Kumbakonam Police Station, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District

¶40

4/5

¶41

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

¶42

W.P.(MD)No.6202 of 2024

¶43

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶44

vrn

¶45

Order made in W.P.(MD)No.628 of 2024 and WMP(MD) Nos.642 & 643 of 2024

¶46

15.03.2024

¶47

5/5

¶48

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

Rajesh v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tvl v Vairam Contractor Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Tvl v Vairam Contractor Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)

M/s. Growlam Office Private Limited Vs The Commissioner of Customs

B.Akash Vs The Secretary

Vandhana.B Vs The Secretary

A Sri Palahari Purushothama Ramanuja Jeeyar Mutt Vs The Joint Commissioner