P.Karunakaran v. The Revenue Divisional Officer
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07.08.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN P.Karunakaran ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Revenue Divisional Office, Sivakasi Town, Virudhunagar District.
2.The Deputy Director, Department of Geology and Mines, Collectorate Complex, Madurai, Madurai District.
3.The Tahsildar, Srivilliputhur Taluk Office, Srivilliputhur Town, Virudhunagar District.
4.The Sub Inspector of Police, Vanniyampatti Police Station, Vanniyampatti, Srivilliputhur Taluk, Virudhunagar District.
... Respondents Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to release the petitioner's tractor bearing Registration No.TN 58 R 8013 and Trailer bearing Registration No.TN 67 AQ 1083 from the custody of the third respondent within a stipulated time that may be fixed by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu For Respondents : Mr.S.Angappan Government Advocate
O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel on either side.
2. The petition mentioned vehicle was seized in connection with the alleged illegal transportation of sand.
3. The learned Government Advocate states that even though the criminal case has been registered, the vehicle in question is 1/4
yet to be produced before the Jurisdictional Court. The case is still under investigation. I am of the view that so long as the vehicle has not been produced before the Jurisdictional Court, the Writ Court will always have the power to direct for the release of the vehicle.
4. The petitioner's counsel gives an undertaking that the petitioner will see to it that the vehicle is not involved in any other offences of similar nature. The vehicle will be produced before the authority or the Court concerned as and when required. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the vehicle will not be alienated.
5. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is placed on record. If the undertaking given before this Court is breached, the benefit of this order will stand recalled and the vehicle in question will be taken back to custody and it will be released only after getting orders from this Court on such terms as this Court may deem it fit to impose.
6. I am of the view that keeping the petition mentioned vehicle in the custody of the respondents is not going to serve any purpose. 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."
7. The petitioner's counsel states that even though he had purchased the petition mentioned vehicle, the name transfer is yet to be effected. But he is in possession of the original documents. The respondents are therefore directed to return the vehicle to the petitioner even though his name is not figuring in the RC Book. It is also seen that normally this Court imposes the cost of Rs.25,000/- for return of vehicle. But in the case on hand, the vehicle was seized almost eight months back. Therefore, some indulgence can be shown to the petitioner. The respondents are directed to release the said vehicle subject to the following conditions:- 2/4
a) The petitioner is directed to take a Demand Draft for a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) in favour of the Officer-in-Charge, High Court Legal Services Committee, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai, in S.B.A/c.No.496037387 and IFSC : IDIB000H040 in Indian Bank, High Court Branch, Madurai. It will be a non-refundable payment. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to ensure that the said sum is withdrawn immediately and spent for the welfare of the Advocates' Clerks associated with the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
b) The petitioner shall not alienate or encumber the vehicle in question till the proceedings are completed. c) The petitioner shall produce all the documents pertaining to the ownership of the seized vehicle. d) 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.
8. Upon completion of these formalities, the respondents shall release the vehicle forthwith and without any delay. If this undertaking given by the petitioner is breached, the petitioner will not be entitled to interim release of the vehicle in future. The Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-II) // True Copy // / /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) tsg 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.
To:
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Revenue Divisional Office, Sivakasi Town, Virudhunagar District.
3/4
2.The Deputy Director, Department of Geology and Mines, Collectorate Complex, Madurai, Madurai District.
3.The Tahsildar, Srivilliputhur Taluk Office, Srivilliputhur Town, Virudhunagar District.
4.The Sub Inspector of Police, Vanniyampatti Police Station, Vanniyampatti, Srivilliputhur Taluk, Virudhunagar District.
COPY TO 1.The Registrar (Judicial), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
2.The Officer Incharge, High Court Legal Services Committee, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
+1 CC to M/s.GP ( SR-13909[F] dated 12/08/2020 ) 07.08.2020 SCR(CO) TR(14.08.2020) 4P 8C 4/4