K.Selvakumar v. The Revenue Divisional Officer
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02.09.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN K.Selvakumar ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Musiri Sub Division, Musiri, Trichy District.
2.The Tahsildar, Musiri Taluk Office, Musiri, Trichy District.
3.The Assistant Director, Department of Geology and Mining, Collectorate, Tiruchirapalli ... 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 47 AX 9645 with Trailer seized on 18.04.2020 and keeping under the custody of the third respondent by considering his representation dated 24.08.2020.
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, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
2. The petition mentioned vehicle was seized by the first respondent.
3.It appears that in violation of the lock down restrictions, the moment had taken place. It is open to the respondents to take action in accordance with law against the petitioner for having violated the lock down restrictions.
1/3
4. The learned Special Government Advocate states that till date no First Information Report has been registered. The enquiry in this regard is still pending.
5. The petitioner's counsel gives an undertaking that the petitioner will see to it that the vehicle is not involved in any other activities 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.
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. The ownership and the entitlement of the petitioner over the petition mentioned vehicle does not appear to be in doubt. Therefore, the respondents are directed to release the said vehicle subject to the following conditions:- a) The petitioner shall not alienate or encumber the vehicle in question till the proceedings are completed. b) The petitioner shall produce all the documents pertaining to the ownership of the seized vehicle.
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
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 (CS-II) // True Copy // / /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) rmi 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, Musiri Sub Division, Musiri, Trichy District.
2.The Tahsildar, Musiri Taluk Office, Musiri, Trichy District.
3.The Assistant Director, Department of Geology and Mining, Collectorate, Tiruchirapalli.
+1 CC to SPL GP ( SR-15942[F] dated 04/09/2020 ) 02.09.2020 VB (09.09.2020) 3P 5C 3/3