1. In all these matters, since common issues have been raised, they are heard together and disposed of by means of this common order.

2. For the sake of convenience, let me refer to the facts of the case in W.P.(MD) No.17937 of 2013.

3. In W.P.(MD) No.17937 of 2013, admittedly the petitioner is the owner of the Maxi Cab Van bearing registration No.TN 31 M 6043. The third respondent made an inspection of the said vehicle on 17.10.2013 at 6.30 p.m. and found that the vehicle was used in violation of the permit conditions. On that allegation, the vehicle was seized by the third respondent. Thereafter, for safe custody, it was handed over to the fourth respondent and now the vehicle is in the custody of the fourth respondent. While so, the petitioner has made representations on 18.10.2013 and 24.10.2013 to the respondents, seeking return of the vehicle to him. But, there has been no response. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court with this Writ Petition.

4. In W.P.(MD) No.17937 of 2013, it is mainly contended by the petitioner that respondents 2 to 4 have got no power to detain the vehicle for an indefinite period without passing any order under Sub Section (2) of