Karthick v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13.08.2020

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN Karthick ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District.

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

3.The Assistant Director, Tamil Nadu Mines and Minerals, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District.

... Respondents Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein to release the Lorry, bearing Registration No.TN 23 C 5757 seized by the 2nd respondent herein, pertaining to the case in Cr.No.418 of 2019 on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 25.06.2020 and return the vehicle to him. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vinayak For Respondents : Mr.M.Rajarajan, 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 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.

1/3

5.The petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner's name is not figuring in the R.C.Book, because he is only an agreement holder. Since the vehicle was seized only from the petitioner, even though the petitioner's name is not figuring in the R.C.Book, the respondents are directed to return the same to the petitioner upon fulfilment of the conditions. The petitioner states that he can only produce the photocopy of the R.C.Book. I make it clear that merely because I have directed for return of the vehicle that will not confer any ownership right on him. The rights of the third parties are not considered here and they are left open. He further submits that the petitioner had already remitted a sum of Rs.22,500/- and he had complied with the same. Therefore, I am inclined to show some indulgence in the matter of cost.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. Therefore, the respondents are directed to release the said vehicle subject to the following conditions:- a) The petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.27,500/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Thousand and Five Hundred 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, IFSC : IDIB000H040, Indian Bank, High Court Branch, Madurai. It will be a non refundable payment. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to spend the amount towards feeding the members of the Narikuravar Community living at Sakkimangalam Village, Madurai.

b) The petitioner shall not alienate or encumber the vehicle in question till the proceedings are completed. 2/3

c) 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.

9. Upon completion of these formalities, the respondents shall release the vehicle forthwith 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 (AS) // True Copy // / /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) ias/dss 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, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District.

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

3.The Assistant Director, Tamil Nadu Mines and Minerals, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District.

4.The Registrar (Judicial), Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, Madurai.

5.The Officer in charge, High Court Legal Services Committee, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

+1 CC to M/s.S. VINAYAK, Advocate ( SR-14120[F] dated 14/08/2020 ) 13.08.2020 KK(14.08.2020) 3P 7C 3/3