Sivaguru v. The State Rep By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17-06-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN AND WMP Nos. 19883 & 19885 of 2025 Sivaguru W/o.Ayyanar, No.6, Mattaiyan Street, Gandhikuppam, Thiruvennainallur Post, Villupuram District. ..Petitioner(s) Vs
1. The State Rep By The Deputy Superintendent Of Police Prohibition Of Enforcement Wing, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.
2. The Inspector Of Police Prohibition Of Enforcement Wing, Panruti, Cuddalore District.
(Crime No.136/2025) ..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for records sequel to the impugned order issued by the 1st respondent vide proceedings No. Na.Ka.En:01/ Ka.Thu. Ka / Ma.V.Aa. Pirivu / Cuddalore/ 2025 dated 16.04.2025 and quash the same as illegal and consequently directing the respondents to release the petitioner's vehicle (i.e. , bearing TN 32- AS- 2187 Hero Splendor Plus Two- Wheeler Black Colour) and pass such other further order or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.M.Kalaiyarasan For Respondent(s):
Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side)
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the show cause notice issued to the first respondent dated 16.04.2025 calling upon the petitioner to submit reply for the show cause notice. On receipt of the same, the petitioner also replied stating that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle and she is not an accused. However, her vehicle was used by an accused in crime No 136 of 2025 registered for offences punishable under Sections 4 (1)(C), 4(1)(A), 14(A) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2024. However, no order has been passed so far.
2. On perusal of the counter filed by the second respondent and also the submissions, it reveals after receipt of show cause notice, the first respondent passed confiscation order and the same was also duly served to the petitioner. However, the petitioner did not file an appeal so far. Instead of filing any appeal, the petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the show cause notice. Now after issuance of show cause notice ,the final order of confiscation has been passed by the first respondent.
3. In view of the above, the prayer sought for in this writ petition has become infructuous. However, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the order of confiscation in respect of her vehicle in the manner known to law before the first respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
4. In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are dismissed. 17-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order MTL To
1. The State Rep By The Deputy Superintendent Of Police Prohibition Of Enforcement Wing, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.
2. The Inspector Of Police Prohibition Of Enforcement Wing, Panruti, Cuddalore District.
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN J.
MTL AND WMP Nos. 19883 & 19885 of 2025 17-06-2026