Madras High Court
Kumerasan vs The Deputy Superintendent Of ... on 11 May, 2023
W.P.(MD).No.11556 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 11.05.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.P.(MD)No. 11556 of 2023
Kumerasan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Prohibition Enforcement Wing,
Ramanathapuram District.
2.The Inspector of Police
Prohibition Enforcement Wing,
Ramanathapuram,
Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to
release the petitioner's two wheeler Scooty vehicle bearing Registration
No.TN 65 AP 5071 within stipulated time to be fixed by this Hon'ble
court by considering petitioner's representation dated 17.04.2023.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Mahendra Rajan
For Respondents : Mr.C.Satheesh,
Government Advocate
ORDER
The petitioner, who is the owner of two wheeler Scooty
vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 65 AP 5071, has filed this petition
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.11556 of 2023
seeking direction directing the respondents to release the petitioner's
vehicle.
2. The 2nd respondent seized the vehicle in Crime No.477 of 2022
finding that on 20.05.2022, the petitioner's vehicle was involved in
offences under Sections 4 (1) (a) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. The
complaint is that when the 2nd respondent along with his team was
keeping surveillance watch over the prohibition offenders, at that time,
he was involved in illegal Transportation of liquors by using the
petitioner's Motor cycle scooty bearing Registration No.TN 65 AP 5071.
Finding that the vehicle was involved in prohibition offence, the vehicle
was seized later and produced in the police station.
3. The contention of the petitioner is that the seized vehicle of the
petitioner is now kept in open, in the police station exposing to vagaries
of weather, and the vehicle is kept idle. The value of the vehicle is
diminished and continuing to keep the vehicle in open would make the
vehicle unusable. The respondent police not followed the instructions
contemplated in G.O.Ms.No.39,(Home), Prohibition and Excise (VII)
Department, dated 22.10.2019. The respondents failed to follow Section
14(4) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.11556 of 2023
4.In view of the same, the questioning of detaining the vehicle and
auctioning the same without any confiscation does not arise. The vehicle
has also not been produced before the lower Court as a case property.
The petitioner, further relied upon the judgment of this Court in
W.P.(MD).No.12769 of 2020 (Selvaraj Vs. The Superintendent of
Police, Trichy District, Trichy) dated 28.09.2020, wherein, in similar
circumstances, this court had passed an order granting interim custody of
the vehicle.
5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submits that in this
case, the vehicle, though was seized by the respondent police on
20.05.2022, the vehicle is yet to be produced before the lower court as a
case property in Crime No.477 of 2022, but the seized liquor bottles were
produced. The vehicle was not produced, since they are contemplating to
initiate confiscation proceedings. He further submits that the 2nd
respondent sent the communication to the Additional Superintendent of
Police, Ramanathapuram to initiate the confiscation proceedings, but yet
to receive any orders from the Additional Superintendent of Police.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.11556 of 2023
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not
aware about the confiscation proceedings, no notice served to him,
finding that the vehicle seized in the month of May 2022 and so far, the
vehicle neither produced before the lower court, nor confiscation
proceedings initiated. Only now request made to the Deputy
Superintendent of Police. It is made clear that it is open to the
respondents to initiate and conclude the confiscation proceedings interim
custody of the vehicle alone granted this court in an identical situation
had directed release the seized vehicle and handed over to the petitioner.
The respondents to release the said vehicle subject to the following
conditions:-
a. The
petitioner is directed to pay a sum of
Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) in favour of the
Legal Service Authority, Ramanathapuram District. It will
be a non-refundable payment. The Legal Service
Authority is directed to spend the amount for appropriate
welfare activities.
b. The petitioner shall not alienate or encumber the
vehicle in question till the proceedings are completed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.11556 of 2023
c. The petitioner shall produce all the documents
pertaining to the ownership of the seized vehicle.
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
release the vehicle forthwith without any delay. If this undertaking given
by the petitioner is breached, the petitioner will not be entitled to interim
release of the vehicle in future. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
No costs.
8. It is made clear that it is only the interim measurement subject to
the outcome of the confiscation proceedings.
Index : Yes / No 11.05.2023
Internet : Yes
ksa
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.11556 of 2023
To
1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Prohibition Enforcement Wing,
Ramanathapuram District.
2.The Inspector of Police
Prohibition Enforcement Wing,
Ramanathapuram,
Ramanathapuram District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.11556 of 2023
S.SRIMATHY, J
ksa
Order made in
W.P.(MD)No.11556 of 2023
11.05.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
