Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
Senthil Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The Assistant Director, Geology and Mines, Tirunelveli District & Others – Respondents
W.P. (MD) No. 18272 of 2020
Decided On : 11-12-2020
Mandamus - Seized Vehicle - Release of Vehicle
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking the release of a Tipper Lorry seized by the police on the grounds that it was still in custody and exposed to the elements, causing it to depreciate in value.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the vehicle was indeed seized and was being kept idle in the police station premises, which would lead to its depreciation in value. The court granted the release of the seized vehicle to the petitioner subject to certain conditions.
Issues: The main issue was the release of the seized vehicle and the petitioner's claim that it was being kept idle and exposed to the elements, causing it to depreciate in value.
Ratio Decidendi: The court decided to grant the release of the seized vehicle to the petitioner based on the fact that the vehicle was being kept idle and exposed to the elements, which would lead to its depreciation in value. The court imposed certain conditions for the release of the vehicle to ensure compliance with the law.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the writ petition by granting the release of the seized vehicle to the petitioner subject to specified conditions.
JUDGMENT :
(Through the Video Conferencing)
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents and their subordinates to release the Tipper Lorry Bearing Registration No.TN-04-M-9149, seized on 03.12.2020 and which is now under the custody of the third respondent to the petitioner.)
1. This writ petition has been filed for a Mandamus seeking for a direction to the respondents and their subordinates to release the Tipper Lorry Bearing Registration No.TN-04-M-9149, seized on 03.12.2020, which is now under the custody of the third respondent to the petitioner.
2. Mr.M.Rajarajan, learned Additional Government Pleader accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent of both parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
3. Heard Mr.D.Venkatesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Rajarajan, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner of the aforementioned vehicle. According to the petitioner, on 03.12.2020, the third respondent seized the vehicle and registered a case against the petitioner in Crime No.333 of 2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 379, 465, 468 and 471 of I.P.C., alleging that the petitioner has transported four units of red sand without any valid license. According to the petitioner, ever since the seizure, the said vehicle is still in the custody of the third respondent Police.
5. It is also the contention of the petitioner that the vehicle has also not been produced by the third respondent Police before the concerned Jurisdictional Court. According to him, the seized vehicle is now kept idle in the Police Station premises in the open place and exposed to the vagaries of nature, resulting in the vehicle depreciating in value. In such circumstances, he has filed this Writ Petition seeking for release of the seized vehicle.
6. According to the petitioner, he gave representation to the second respondent on 04.12.2020 for releasing of the seized vehicle back to him. According to him, the second respondent has failed to respond to the said representation. In such circumstances, he has filed this Writ Petition seeking for release of the seized vehicle.
7. Admittedly, the vehicle was seized by the third respondent on 03.12.2020 and a case has been registered by the third respondent Police against the petitioner in Crime No.333 of 2020, for the offence punishable under Sections 379, 465, 468 and 471 of I.P.C., alleging that the petitioner has transported four units of red sand without any valid license. Admittedly, the vehicle is now in the Police Station premises and kept in the open place and exposed to the vagaries of nature and the vehicle has also not been produced before the Jurisdictional Court.
8. As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the vehicle will certainly depreciate in value, if it is allowed to remain in the open place and kept idle for a long period of time. No useful purpose will be served if the vehicle is allowed to be kept idle. In similar matters, this Court has granted release of seized vehicle to the respective petitioners subject to fulfillment of certain conditions. Therefore, this Court is inclined to grant similar relief to the petitioner subject to fulfillment of the following conditions:-
(i) the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) in favour of the second respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(ii) the petitioner shall not alienate or encumber the vehicle in question till the proceedings are completed.
(iii) the petitioner shall not change the colour and scheme of the vehicle.
(iv) the petitioner shall not use the vehicle for any illegal activities.
(v) before releasing the vehicle, the police authority shall take photographs of the vehicle at the cost of the
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
