Selvi v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04.01.2021

CORAM

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

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Paramakudi Revene Division, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.

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

3.The Inspector of Police, Sayalkudi Police Station, Sayalkudi, Ramanathapuram District.

(Crime No.274 of 2019) ... Respondents Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 3rd respondent to release the petitioner's Baja Pulsar Two Wheeler bike bearing Registration No.TN-65-AX-3373, seized on 09.12.2019 and keeping under the custody of the 3rd respondent by considering her representations dated 11.12.2019 and 07.09.2020. For Petitioner : Mr.Muthuvai Ilayaraja.K For Respondents : Ms.M.Rajeswari, 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.

1/4

2.The petitioner claims to be the owner of the petition mentioned vehicle. It was seized in connection with the petition mentioned crime number. The petitioner's counsel states that till date the vehicle in question has not been produced before the jurisdictional court.

3.It has been held time and again that keeping the vehicle in the custody of the respondents is not going to serve any purpose. On the other hand, it will contribute to loss of value. 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. Therefore, the Writ Court will always have the power to direct release of vehicle.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the vehicle has not been involved in any previous case of the same nature. He also submitted that the petitioner is also not having any previous case.

5.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.

6.Normally, this Court would impose payment of cost. But in this case, the vehicle was in custody for more than one year. The petitioner was put to sufficient loss. Therefore, I refrain from imposing cost in this case.

7.Recording the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions, I direct release of the petition mentioned 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. If the petitioner concerned is an agreement holder and the R.C book is with the financier, he or she can 2/4

be permitted to produce the photocopies of the relevant documents and if the vehicle is a new one, sales invoice can be produced.

c) As and when the respondents call for the vehicle for enquiry, the petitioner has to produce the vehicle in question and shall cooperate with the enquiry to be conducted by the respondents.

8.After completion of the aforesaid formalities, the respondents shall release the petition mentioned vehicle forthwith without any delay. If the undertaking given by the petitioner is breached, the petitioner will not be entitled to interim release of the vehicle in future and the order passed by this Court 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. 9.The Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) /TRUE COPY/ / /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar 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, Paramakudi Revene Division, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.

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

3/4

3.The Inspector of Police, Sayalkudi Police Station, Sayalkudi, Ramanathapuram District.

+1 CC to M/s.Special Government Pleader ( SR-102[F] dated 05/01/2021 ) 04.01.2021 IAS JM/11.01.2021/4P/5C 4/4