Moorthy v. The Revenue Divisional Officer
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN Moorthy ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Pattukottai, Thanjavur District.
2.State represented by The Inspector of Police, Thiruchitrambalam Police Station, Thanjavur District.
(Crime No.1334/2020) 3.The Assistant Director, Tamil Nadu Mines and Minerals, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District.
... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to release the bullock cart seized by the second respondent herein pertaining to the case in Crime No.1334 of 2020, dated 19.12.2020 on the basis of the representation dated 28.01.2021 and return the bullock cart to the petitioner within the stipulated time. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar For Respondents : Mr.M.Rajarajan Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel on either side. By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
2.The petitioner claims to be the owner of the petition mentioned vehicle. It was seized in connection with the petition mentioned crime number. The petitioner's counsel states that till date, the vehicle in question has not been produced before the jurisdictional court.
3.It has been held time and again that keeping the vehicle in the custody of the respondents is not going to serve any purpose. 1/3
On the other hand, it will contribute to loss of value. Even though the criminal case has been registered, the vehicle in question is yet to be produced before the jurisdictional Court. The case is still under investigation. Therefore, the Writ Court will always have the power to direct release of vehicle. 4.The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the vehicle has not been involved in any previous case of the same nature. He also submitted that the petitioner is also not having any previous case.
5.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:- "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.
6.Recording the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions, I direct release of the petition mentioned vehicle. The respondents shall release the petition mentioned vehicle forthwith without any delay. 7.The Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (RTI) // True Copy // / /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) Note :In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
2/3
To 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Pattukottai, Thanjavur District.
2.The Inspector of Police, Thiruchitrambalam Police Station, Thanjavur District.
3.The Assistant Director, Tamil Nadu Mines and Minerals, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District.
+1 CC to Mr.A.THIRUVADI KUMAR, Advocate ( SR-4473[F] dated 11/02/2021 ) +1 CC to SPL GP ( SR-4660[F] dated 12/02/2021 ) 10.02.2021 (KUN) KV(17.02.2021) 3P 6C 3/3