Thaj Nisha v. The Revenue Divisional Officer,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03.09.2020

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN Thaj Nisha ... Petitioner Vs.

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

2. The Tahsildar, Thiruvadanai Taluk Office, Ramanathapuram District.

3. The Inspector of Police, S.P.Pattinam police station, Ramanathapuram District.

(Crime No.51 of 2019)

4. The Assistant Director of Geology and Mining, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram 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 vehicle, namely, Ashok Leyland Goods Carrier Taurus lorry bearing registration No.TN 28-AC-6870, Chassis No.MNR 160716 and Engine No.MNH 521549 from his custody and to hand over the above vehicle to the petitioner forthwith, by considering the petitioner's representation dated 25.08.2020.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.S.Jeyakarthik For Respondents : Mr.S.Angappan, Government Advocate.

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 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 1/3

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. Since the First Information Report was registered way back in the year 2019, for more than one year, the vehicle in question is in the custody of the respondents. The petitioner must have been put to sufficient loss. Therefore, I am not inclined to impose any cost for return of vehicle.

8. The petitioner's counsel states that the registration number given in this writ petition is correct and the one given in the First Information Report is erroneous. Therefore, the respondents are directed to return the petition mentioned vehicle to the petitioner subject to the fulfilment of other conditions.

9. 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. 2/3

b) As and when the respondents call for the vehicle for enquiry, the petitioner has to produce the vehicle in question and she 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 (CS-II) // True Copy // / /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) pmu 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, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

2. The Tahsildar, Thiruvadanai Taluk Office, Ramanathapuram District.

3. The Inspector of Police, S.P.Pattinam police station, Ramanathapuram District.

4. The Assistant Director of Geology and Mining, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

+1 CC to SGP ( SR-15956[F] dated 04/09/2020 ) 03.09.2020 KM (09.09.2020) 3P 6C 3/3