JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to release the petitioner's vehicle (TVS XL 100 Heavy) bearing Registration No.TN 67 BK 4016 based on the petitioner's representation dated 10.05.2022 within a stipulated time as fixed by this Court.)

1. This writ petition has been filed for directing respondents to release the petitioner's vehicle (TVS XL 100 Heavy) bearing Registration No.TN 67 BK 4016 which was seized by the second respondent on 23.04.2022 in pursuance to the registration of case in Crime No.147 of 2022 on the file of the second respondent, forthwith in accordance with law by considering the representation dated 10.05.2022.

2. Mr.M.Paramasivam, learned counsel for the writ petitioner is before this Court. Mr.G.Suriyananth, learned Additional Government Pleader accepts notice on behalf of all the three respondents.

3. With the consent of both sides, the main writ petition is taken up and heard out.

4. In a similar case another Hon'ble Single Judge has ordered release of the seized vehicle on certain terms which was seized for the alleged violation of Sections 4(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937. This Court vide order dated 09.07.2020 in W.P.(MD)No. 2679 of 2020 (Sathiah v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others) and also placed reliance on the order dated 06.06.2019 made in Crl.O.P.No.11945 of 2019. In the said orders the vehicle was released on terms.

5. The respondents relied on G.O.Ms.No.39 Home, Prohibition and Excise (VIII) Department dated 22.10.2019, to sustain the contention that the second respondent can very well auction the vehicle in question. But the said Government order will come into play after the confiscation is done under Section 14 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act 1937. In this case, there is nothing on record to show the fulfillment of formalities set out in Section 14(4) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. Therefore, the question of auctioning the vehicle even without formal confiscation does not arise at all. Also, it does not mean that the vehicle involved in criminal case should not be produced before the Jurisdictional Court. In fact, the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code envisage that the seized vehicle should be produced before the Jurisdictional Court and the party concerned can avail the right to claim the vehicle by way of interim or final custody.

6. The conditions imposed and the release of the vehicle post compliance of the conditions have been set out by the Hon'ble Single Judge in paragraph Nos.5, 6 & 7.

7. Therefore, there shall be a similar order in this matter. The order is a follows:

7.1. I make it clear that it is very much open to the respondents herein to initiate and conclude the confiscation proceedings. The only relief that I am granting is interim custody of the vehicle. I have not gone into the merits of the matter.

7.2. Therefore, the respondents are directed to release the said vehicle subject to the following conditions:

a) The petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) to the credit of the Officer-in-Charge, High Court Legal Services Committee, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai, S.B.A/c.No.496037387, IFSC : IDIB000H040, Indian Bank, High Court Branch, Madurai. It will be a non-refundable payment. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to spend the amount for appropriate welfare activities such as feeding the disadvantaged communities in Madurai District;

b) the petitioner is directed to file a fresh representation before the authorities along with the copy of this order.

c) The petitioner shall not alienate or encumber the vehicle in question till the proceedings are completed;

d) The petitioner shall produce all documents pertaining to ownership of the seized vehicle; and

e) when the respondents call for the vehicle for enquiry, the petitioner has to produce the vehicle in question and he shall coope