The court's decision was influenced by the provisions of Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C., emphasizing the need to prevent detriment to the petitioner's interest and the requirement for specified conditions to be fulfilled for the release of the seized vehicle.

Heard both sides.

2. By consent of both sides, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

3. No counter is filed on behalf of the Respondents.

4. According to the Petitioner, he being the owner of Tipper Lorry bearing Registration No.TN -72-AS-3339 was seized by the Second Respondent on 30.04.2016 when it was plying through Ambasamudram-Tenkasi Main Road.

5. The stand of the Petitioner is that the vehicle was seized on the footing that the Petitioner's driver transported six units of rough stones without having any valid licence and in fact, the vehicle was handed-over to the Third Respondent. At present, the Third Respondent is in custody of the vehicle in-front of the Kadayam Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

6. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner made representation before the First Respondent/The Revenue Divisional Officer(Sub-Collector),Revenue Divisional Office, Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli District on 02.06.2016 seeking release of the vehicle in question. However, his representation has not met with any positive response till date. Moreover, if the vehicle in question is detained in the Police Station or kept in-front of the Third Respondent police Station, then it will be exposed to hot sun and rain and day-by-day its value will get deteriorated and at one point of time, the vehicle will be of no use to the Petitioner.

7. At this stage, the Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents 1 to 3 brings it to the notice of this Court that Fine Proceedings are pending against the Petitioner/owner of the vehicle before the First Respondent/The Revenue Divisional Officer(Sub-Collector),Revenue Divisional Office, Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli District.

8. In this connection, this Court relevantly points out that on 17.05.2013, this Court in W.P.(MD)No.14224 of 2013 between K.Gangadaran vs. (i) the District Collector, Coimbatore District and another, whereby and where-under at paragraphs-8 to 10, it is observed and laid down as under.

“8. In the instant case, the petitioner is said to have submitted his representation dated 02.05.2013 addressed to the second respondent praying for handing over of the pick up Mini Van bearing Registration No.KL 9 AD 3334 in question.

9. One cannot ignore an important fact that a Judicial Magistrate can pass an order under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. Only after physical or symbolical production of seized material before the Court and that too only after hearing both sides. It cannot be gainsaid that such an order is final as between the parties. A party affected by such an order is entitled to file a Revision before the Competent Forum. For disposal of property under Section 451 of Cr.P.C., it is necessary that the property should be in the control of Magistrate. The orders to be passed by the competent Judicial Magistrate are under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C., which are during the pendency of trial or enquiry.

10. Be that as it may and taking note of the fact that the seized vehicle cannot be kept either in the Police Station or within a precincts of R.D.O.'s Office etc., and also bearing in mind an important fact that such keeping of seized vehicle for a long time will be detriment to the interest of the petitioner, this Court, in the interest of justice, directs the first respondent to release the Ashok Leyland Mini Pick up Van bearing Registration No.KL 9 AD 3334, subject to the petitioner fulfilling the following conditions:-

(a) The petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) in cash before the first respondent;

(b) The petitioner is directed to produce all the documents pertaining to the ownership of the seized vehicle;

(c) The petitioner is to file an affidavit of undertaking that he will cause production of the vehicle in question before the competent/concerned respondents (as the case may be) as and when called for and further, he will not alienate the vehicle in question till