Madras High Court
V.Kumaravel vs The Deputy Superintendent Of Police on 3 September, 2024
Author: Mohammed Shaffiq
Bench: Mohammed Shaffiq
W.P.(MD)No.20978 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 03.09.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
W.P.(MD)No.20978 of 2024
and
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.17768, 17769 and 17771 of 2024
V.Kumaravel ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
(Prohibition Wing),
Virudhunagar.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Sattur Town Police Station,
Sattur,
Virudhunagar District.
3.The District Manager,
TASMAC,
Virudhunagar District.
4.Marimuthu
5.Namachivayam ... Respondents
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.20978 of 2024
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the order
passed by the first respondent in e.f.vz;.75-2/fh.J.f/k.tp.m.gp/tp.kh/2023
dated 22.07.2024 under Section 14(4) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act and to
quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen
For R-1 and R-2 : Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi
Government Advocate
Criminal Side
For R-3 : Mr.H.Arumugam
Standing Counsel
ORDER
The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the order dated 22.07.2024,
whereby the petitioner's Auto Rickshaw was confiscated under Section 14(4) of
Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, on the ground that the petitioner was allegedly
found carrying 100 liquor bottles on the instructions of the fifth respondent.
2. The short ground on which the impugned order of confiscation
challenged is that the petitioner had submitted his reply vide letter dated
08.07.2024 in response to the notice dated 27.06.2024 issued under Section
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
14(4)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. However, the petitioner was not
granted the opportunity of personal hearing.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment
of this Court in the case of Senthil Kumar Vs State, represented by
Superintendent of Police and another reported in 2020 SCC Online Mad
17831, wherein it was held that failure to grant an opportunity of personal
hearing vitiates the proceedings. The relevant portion of the order is extracted
hereunder:
“8. In this case, the first respondent has no doubt put
the petitioner on notice. The petitioner had also given the
explanation in writing. But then, that alone would not
suffice. The petitioner ought to have been heard. But in this
case, such personal hearing was not granted. Therefore, on
this sole ground, the order impugned in this writ petition is
quashed. The matter is remitted to the file of the first
respondent. The first respondent shall issue hearing notice
and thereafter pass orders afresh and in accordance with
law. The first respondent will not take note of the earlier
confiscation order. He will independently decide the matter.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondents
1 and 2 would submit that the petitioner would be afforded an opportunity of
personal hearing and that the petitioner must co-operate without availing any
further adjournments.
5. Considering the submissions made by either side, the impugned order
is set aside, as failure to grant personal hearing vitiates the impugned
proceedings. The petitioner shall appear before the first respondent on
17.09.2024 at about 11.00 A.M, failing which the confiscation proceeding will
be restored.
6. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
03.09.2024
NCC:yes/no
Index:yes/no
Internet:yes/no
Nsr
Note: Issue Order Copy on 03.09.2024.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To:
1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
(Prohibition Wing),
Virudhunagar.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Sattur Town Police Station,
Sattur,
Virudhunagar District.
3.The District Manager,
TASMAC,
Virudhunagar District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
Nsr
03.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
