Durai v. The District Revenue Officer

ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the second respondent.

¶2The petition mentioned vehicle was seized in connection with Crime No.192 of 2022 registered on the file of the second respondent.

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

¶4It 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.

¶5No 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.

¶6Therefore, the second 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.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) towards cost in the bank account of Government Children Home (Government Orphanage), Dr.Thangaraj Colony, K.K.Nagar, Madurai-625020 [Account No: 37487255860, IFSC: SBIN0007922]. It will be a non-refundable payment. 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.

¶7Upon 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.

¶8The 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.

03.11.2023 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No rmi To

1.The District Revenue Officer, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.

2.The Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies CID, Thoothukudi. Copy to: Government Leprosy Home, Y.Pudhupatti, Madurai.

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J. rmi

03.11.2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 03.11.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN Durai ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Revenue Officer, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi. 2.The Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies CID, Thoothukudi. ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the first respondent to release the Ashok Leyland Dhost bearing Registration No.TN-74-AE-6292 seized by the second respondent on 20.09.2022 to the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Leninkumar For Respondents : Mr.K.Balasubramani Special Government Pleader for R1 Mr.M.Veeranthiran Government Advocate for R.2