Sebastian v. The Revenue Divisional Officer
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22.09.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN Sebastian ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ramnagar, Devakottai Revenue Divisional Office, Sivagangai District.
2.The Thasildar, Karaikudi Taluk Office, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.
3.The Village Administrative Officer, Pallthur Village, Pallthur, Sivagangai District.
4.The Assistant Director of Geology, Sivagangai, Sivagangai 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 my TATA ACE bearing No.TN-63-S-1459 within the time stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner :
Mr.A.Shajahan 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, 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 Additional 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 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 Revenue Authorities had seized the vehicle. The seizure had taken place way back in the year 2019.
8.Therefore, I direct the respondents to release the vehicle to the petitioner herein without any delay on production of the relevant ownership documents. I make it clear that I have only granted interim custody to the petitioner. If other proceedings already initiated against the petitioner, it can go on. 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. 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.
10.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 2/3
Petition is allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-II) // True Copy // / /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) sji 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, Ramnagar, Devakottai Revenue Divisional Office, Sivagangai District.
2.The Thasildar, Karaikudi Taluk Office, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.
3.The Village Administrative Officer, Pallthur Village, Pallthur, Sivagangai District.
4.The Assistant Director of Geology, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.
+1 CC to M/s.GP ( SR-17862[F] dated 23/09/2020 ) +1 CC to M/s.A. SHAJAHAN, Advocate ( SR-17896[F] dated 23/09/2020 ) 22.09.2020 AL(CO) AP(01/10/2020) 3P 7C 3/3