Jayasurya v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18.08.2020

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN Jayasurya ... 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, to direct the respondents to release the TATA 407 bearing registration No.TN 45 T 7544 seized by the second respondent herein, pertaining to the case in Crime No.980 of 2020 on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 02.08.2020 and return the vehicle to the petitioner. For Petitioner :

Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar For Respondents :

Mr.C.Ramar, Additional Government Pleader

O R D E R

Heard the learned counsel on either side. By consent of both parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

2. The petition mentioned vehicle was seized in connection with the alleged illegal transportation of sand. 3.The learned Additional Government Pleader 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 1/3

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 the petitioner is only an agreement holder and he is not in possession of the original documents and his name is not figuring in the RC book. He is only having photocopies of the same. Since the vehicle was seized only from the petitioner, the respondents are directed to return the vehicle to the petitioner even though the petitioner's name is not figuring in the RC book, on fulfillment of other conditions:- a) The petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty 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, IFSC : IDIB000H040, Indian Bank, High Court Branch, Madurai. It will be a non refundable payment.

The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to spend the amount for the welfare of the Advocates' Clerks associated with the District Court in Madurai District. b) The petitioner shall not alienate or encumber the vehicle in question till the proceedings are completed. 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.

2/3

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 (AD-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, 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 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.A.THIRUVADIKUMAR,Advocate(SR-14381[F] dated 19/08/2020) +1 CC to M/s.GP ( SR-14398[F] dated 19/08/2020 ) 18.08.2020 AP(26/08/2020) 3 P 8C 3/3