Allowed

M.Sundar v. The District Revenue Officer

Madras HC27 Jun 2025WP(MD)/17492/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice S. Saravanan allowed a writ petition seeking release of a seized vehicle. The court directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to release the Ashok Leyland Goods Carrier upon the petitioner depositing 25% of its value, treating the release as provisional subject to final confiscation orders.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent to release the seized vehicle upon deposit of 25% of its value.

M.Sundar Vs The District Revenue Officer — Property and Title | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.17492 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 27.06.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.17492 of 2025

M.Sundar

... Petitioner

/vs./

1.The District Revenue Officer, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

¶11

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District.

¶12

3.The District Supply Officer, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District.

¶13

4.The Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies Crime Investigation Department (CSCID), Virudhunagar District Crime No.81 of 2024 ... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to release the Ashok Leyland Goods Carrier being Registration No. TN-68-9725 seized by the

¶15

1/6

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.(MD) No.17492 of 2025

¶18

4th respondent to the petitioner by considering the representation dated 03.06.2025.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Marimuthu For R1 to R3 : Mr.D.Ghandiraj Special Government Pleader For R4 : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi Government Advocate (Crl.side)

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Mr.D.Ghandiraj, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) takes notice for the fourth respondent.

¶22

2.The petitioner has filed this writ petition for a Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to release the vehicle, namely, Ashok Leyland Goods Carrier being Registration No. TN-68-9725 seized by the fourth respondent to the petitioner, by considering the representation dated 03.06.2025.

¶23

3.The petitioner's vehicle was involved in alleged smuggling of PDS rice and therefore, an FIR came to be registered by the fourth respondent in Crime No. 81 of 2024 under Sections 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 r/w Section 7(1)(a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

¶24

2/6

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.(MD) No.17492 of 2025

¶27

4.Since the petitioner's vehicle was involved, wherein the petitioner is not an accused person, the petitioner moved an application for release of the vehicle before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Virudhunagar, in Crime No.81 of 2024. However, the said application has been returned with the following endorsement:-

¶28

“Petition mentioned property not produced in this court. Hence,

¶29

returned.”

¶30

5.When the case is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the vehicle was seized on the date of the offence and handed over to the second respondent and the second respondent has determined the value of the goods as Rs.2,60,000/-.

¶31

6.It is noticed that under similar circumstances, the Court had come to the rescue of an owner, like the petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.15380 of 2025 filed by one Poopandi, taking note of the value of the vehicle and the offences involved, on payment of Rs.25,000/- before the concerned Judicial Magistrate.

¶32

3/6

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.(MD) No.17492 of 2025

¶35

7.I see no reason to take a different view, considering the fact that the petitioner is not directly involved in the alleged smuggling of PDS rice by the persons/accused in the FIR in Crime No.81 of 2024 registered by the fourth respondent. The value of the vehicle as on date appears to be Rs.2,60,000/-.

¶36

8.Under these circumstances, there shall be a direction to the second respondent to release the vehicle subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the value of the vehicle to the credit of Crime No.81 of 2024. This amount is without prejudice to the rights of the respondents.

¶37

9.It is made clear that the release is provisional release and the same will be subject to the final orders to be passed for confiscation of the vehicle, in which case, the petitioner's right will be decided as per the order to be passed for confiscation of the vehicle, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On payment of the aforesaid amount, the second respondent shall release the vehicle.

¶38

4/6

¶39

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

¶40

W.P.(MD) No.17492 of 2025

¶41

10.With the aforesaid directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No

¶42

costs.

¶43

Index : Yes / No 27.06.2025 Internet : Yes / No mm To

¶44

1.The District Revenue Officer, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

¶45

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District.

¶46

3.The District Supply Officer, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District.

¶47

4.The Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies Crime Investigation Department (CSCID), Virudhunagar District

¶48

5/6

¶49

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

¶50

W.P.(MD) No.17492 of 2025

¶51

C.SARAVANAN, J.

¶52

¶53

W.P.(MD) No.17492 of 2025

¶54

27.06.2025

¶55

6/6

¶56

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

M.Sundar v. The District Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Sundar 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

Sureshbabu D Vs The Secretary to Government

S.Saraswathy Vs The Reserve Bank of India

Prakash G Vs The Director of School Education

G.Raja Vs The District Collector

Dineshkumar Vs The Regional Passport Officer

Perumal R Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer