SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Mad) 1761

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.R. SWAMINATHAN, J.
Ramu – Appellant
Versus
The District Revenue Officer, Pudukottai & Another – Respondents
W.P (MD) No. 11517 of 2023
Decided On : 11-05-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:T. Dhandapani, Advocate. For the Respondents:V. Nirmal Kumar, Government Advocate.

The court has the authority to grant interim custody of seized vehicles with specified conditions pending the hearing of applications for return of such vehicles.

Headnote:

Mandamus - Seizure of Vehicle - Interim Custody Granted

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct the release of a seized vehicle used for illegally transporting PDS rice.

Finding of the Court:

The court directed the first respondent to grant interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner with specified conditions, including a non-refundable payment to a government leprosy home and the requirement to produce ownership documents and cooperate with the authorities.

Issues: Seizure of vehicle, interim custody, conditions for granting interim custody, potential confiscation proceedings

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the decision reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283 (Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and Others V. State of Gujarat) which emphasized the need to avoid keeping seized vehicles at police stations for a long period and to grant interim custody with appropriate conditions pending the hearing of applications for return of such vehicles.

Final Decision: The Writ Petition was allowed, and the court granted interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner with specified conditions, clarifying that it would not affect any potential confiscation proceedings.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to release the MAHINDRA BOLERO MAXI TRUCK bearing Registration No.TN-13- P-1586 seized by the second respondent on 19.03.2023 to the petitioner.)

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

2. The petition mentioned vehicle was seized in connection with Crime No.26 of 2023 registered on the file of the second respondent.

3. The petition mentioned vehicle is presently in the custody of the first respondent. The vehicle is said to have been used for illegally transporting PDS rice.

4. It is of course open to the respondent authority to initiate confiscation proceedings. In this case we are concerned only with the issue of granting interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner.

5. No purpose will be served in keeping the vehicle under the custody of the respondents. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283 (Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and Others V. State of Gujarat) has held as follows:-

“17.In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles.

6. Therefore, the first respondent is directed to grant interim custody of the said vehicle to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:-

a) The petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.7,500/- (Rupees Seven Thousand and Five Hundred only) towards cost in the bank account of Government Leprosy Home, Y.Pudhupatti, Madurai (Savings Account No.10111535878, IFSC Code : SBIN0002246 State Bank of India, Othakadai Branch, Madurai). It will be a non-refundable payment. The Trust shall utilise the said amount for the benefits of the inmates of the Madurai Home.

b) The petitioner shall not alienate or encumber the vehicle till the proceedings are completed.

c) The petitioner shall produce all the documents pertaining to the ownership of the seized vehicle. If the petitioner is an agreement holder, he can produce the relevant xerox copies.

d) As and when the respondents call for the vehicle for enquiry, the petitioner has to produce the vehicle in question  and he shall cooperate with the enquiry to be conducted by the respondents.

7. Upon completion of these formalities, the respondents shall grant interim custody of the vehicle forthwith to the petitioner without any delay. If this undertaking given by the petitioner is breached, the petitioner will not be entitled to interim custody of the vehicle in future. The Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. I make it clear that allowing of this writ petition will not have any bearing on the confiscation proceedings that may be initiated by the authorities. There shall be no order as to costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top