Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
Ramamoorthy – Appellant
Versus
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District & Others – Respondents
W.P.(MD)No. 13944 of 2020
Decided On : 07-10-2020
Mandamus - Release of Seized Vehicle - The court granted the release of the seized vehicle to the petitioner subject to certain conditions, considering the depreciation in value if the vehicle is allowed to remain in the open place and kept idle for a long period of time.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's vehicle was seized by the police for alleged transportation of river sand without proper invoices. The petitioner sought the release of the seized vehicle, stating that it was kept idle in the police station premises and exposed to the vagaries of nature, resulting in depreciation of its value.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the vehicle would depreciate in value if left idle and granted its release subject to specific conditions, including the execution of a bond, prohibition on alienation or encumbrance of the vehicle, and cooperation with police enquiries.
Issues: The main issue was the release of the seized vehicle by the police, as the petitioner claimed that it was being kept idle and exposed to the elements, leading to depreciation in value.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the potential depreciation in value of the seized vehicle if left idle, and it granted the release subject to conditions to ensure the petitioner's compliance with the law and cooperation with police enquiries.
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 :
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to release the petitioner's vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 65 AU 7286, forthwith in accordance with law by considering the petitioner's representation dated 01.10.2020.)
1. This writ petition has been filed for a Mandamus seeking for a direction to the respondents to release the petitioner's vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 65 AU 7286.
2. Heard Mr.C.Senthil Murugan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.C.Ramesh, learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents.
3. By consent of both parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner of the two-wheeler bearing Registration No.TN 65 AU 7286. According to him, on 24.09.2020, the third respondent had intercepted his vehicle, when he was proceeding towards his home. According to him, the third respondent has registered a case in Crime No.422 of 2020 for the offence punishable under Section 379 of I.P.C., read with Section 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation Act), 1957 alleging that the petitioner has transported river sand in his vehicle without proper invoices. The petitioner's vehicle was seized by the third respondent Police on the same day. According to the petitioner, ever since the seizure, the said vehicle is still in the custody of the 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 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.
6. According to the petitioner, he gave a representation to the respondents on 24.02.2020 for releasing of the seized vehicle back to him. Thereafter, he once again gave another representation to the respondents on 01.10.2020. According to him, the respondents have failed to respond to the said representations. 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 24.09.2020 and a case has been registered in Crime No.422 of 2020 for the offence punishable under Section 379 of I.P.C., read with Section 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation Act), 1957 alleging that the petitioner has transported river sand in his vehicle without proper invoices. Admittedly, the vehicle is now in the Police Station premises and kept in the open place and exposed to the vagaries of nature and 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 vehicles 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.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) in favour of the first 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 petitioner.
(vi) The petitioner shall produce al
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
