Jeyaraman v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 27.08.2020

CORAM

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

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kulithalai, Karur District.

2.The Assistant Director of Mines and Minerals, Karur District, Karur.

3.The Thasildar, Krishnarayapuram Taluk Office, Krishnarayapuram, Karur District.

... Respondents Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the third respondent to release the petitioner's Ashok Leyland Lorry bearing registration number TN 38 AK 6394, seized on 24.07.2018 and keeping under the custody of the third respondent by consider his representation dated 15.07.2020.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Arunraj For Respondents : Mrs.S.Srimathy Special 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 Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents states that till date no First Information Report has been registered. The enquiry in this regard is still pending.

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 1/3

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 petition mentioned vehicle is in the custody of the respondents for more than two years. Taking note of the same, I am inclined to show some indulgence. Therefore, I refrain from imposing any cost in this Writ Petition. The petitioner's counsel further states that the petitioner is only an agreement holder and that his name is not figuring in the RC Book. He is only having photocopies of the same. Therefore, the respondents are directed to return the vehicle to the petitioner even though his name is not figuring in the RC Book, subject to the following conditions:- a) The petitioner shall not alienate or encumber the vehicle in question till the proceedings are completed. b) 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 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 (Crl Side) // True Copy // / /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) 2/3

gns 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, Kulithalai, Karur District.

2.The Assistant Director of Mines and Minerals, Karur District, Karur.

3.The Thasildar, Krishnarayapuram Taluk Office, Krishnarayapuram, Karur District.

+1 CC to M/s.GP ( SR-15384[F] dated 31/08/2020 ) 27.08.2020 KK(04.09.2020) 3P 5C 3/3