Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 47908

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J
Gopinath – Appellant
Versus
State Of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
Writ Petition

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K.M.Karunakaran
For the Respondents: I.Murugesan

A writ of mandamus for the release of a vehicle cannot be granted when an order of confiscation has already been passed by the competent authority under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act.

Headnote:The petitioner filed a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus for the release of a vehicle seized for alleged involvement in an offence under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. The petitioner contended that a representation for the release of the vehicle had been submitted to the authorities. The primary issue was whether the court should direct the release of the vehicle despite ongoing confiscation proceedings. The court observed that since an order of confiscation had already been passed against the vehicle in question, the request for a writ of mandamus at this stage was not maintainable. The writ petition was disposed of, with the court granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the confiscation order through appropriate legal channels.

Table of Content
1. petitioner requests release of seized vehicle via mandamus. (Para 1 , 2)
2. confiscation order precludes mandamus for vehicle release. (Para 3 , 4)

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04.06.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY Gopinath ...Petitioner vs.

The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by, 1.The Deputy Commissioner of Police (south), Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Trichy, Trichy City.

2.The Inspector of Police, Trichy City Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Trichy City. ...Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to release the petitioner's car Ford ECO Sport bearing Registration No.TN-49-BJ-2714, pertaining to the case in Crime No.75 of 2026 on the file of the second respondent herein and return the vehicle to the petitioner based on the petitioner's representation dated 05.05.2026.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.M.Karunakaran For Respondents : Mr.I.Murugesan, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

The writ petition is filed for a mandamus directing the first respondent to release the petitioner's car bearing registration number TN 49 BJ 2714.

2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the vehicle was involved in Crime No.75 of 2026, the petitioner has already made a representation for return of the said vehicle on 05.05.2026. Inspite thereof, the vehicle is not being handed over to the petitioner.

3. When the matter came up for hearing, the learner Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit that since the vehicle was involved in an offence under Section 4(I)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, a show cause notice was issued on 25.04.2026. Thereafter, final orders of confiscation came to be passed on 07.05.2026.

4. In view thereof, the prayer made by the writ petitioner cannot be countenanced. Granting liberty to the petitioner to assail the confiscation order in the manner known to law, the Writ Petition disposed of. No costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 47908

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASD. Bharatha Chakravarthy, JGopinath – AppellantVersusState Of Tamil Nadu – RespondentWrit Petition

A writ of mandamus for the release of a vehicle cannot be granted when an order of confiscation has already been passed by the competent authority under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J
Gopinath – Appellant
Versus
State Of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
Writ Petition