Madras High Court
C.Pannerselvam vs The District Revenue Officer on 19 June, 2025
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N. Anand Venkatesh
2025:MHC:1427
WP No. 13356 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19-06-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
WP No. 13356 of 2025
C.Pannerselvam
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1.The District Revenue Officer
Ariyalur, Ariyalur District.
2.The Inspector of Police
Civil Supplies CID, Ariyalur
Ariyalur District
Respondent(s)
PRAYER
Directing the 1st respondent to release the van bearing registration no. TN 46-
AA-4297 seized by the Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies CID, Ariyalur,
Ariyalur District on 12.03.2025 to the petitioner.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.C.Prakasam
For Respondent(s): Mr.T.M.Rajangam, GA For R1
Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam
GA (Crl.Side) For R2
Page No.1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 05:56:03 pm )
WP No. 13356 of 2025
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed for issue of a Writ of Mandamus,
directing the respondents to release the Van bearing Registration No.TN 46 AA
nd
4927, which was seized by the 2 respondent on 12.03.2025.
2. Heard Mr.C.Prakasam, the learned counsel for the petitioner,
Mr.T.M.Rajangam, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of
st
the 1 respondent and Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam, the learned Government
nd
Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing on behalf of the 2 respondent.
3. The petitioner, who is the owner of the vehicle, had permitted the
vehicle to be used by one of the accused persons. The accused person seems to
have transported 150 bags of broken rice for poultry feed. The vehicle was
intercepted, resulting in seizure of both the vehicle and the materials, which
were taken into custody.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 05:56:03 pm )
4. A First Information Report (F.I.R) came to be registered in Crime
No.26 of 2025 on the file of the 2nd respondent. Simultaneously, confiscation
proceedings were initiated and the vehicle was kept in the office of the District
Revenue Officer, Ariyalur. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner, who is
the owner of the vehicle has approached this Court seeking for release of the
vehicle.
5. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the 1st
respondent submitted that the confiscation proceedings have already been
initiated and orders will be passed very shortly. Hence, the learned Government
Advocate opposed the release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner on the
ground that the vehicle might be misused once again for transporting rice.
6. The latest judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bishwajit
Dey vs. State of Assam reported in (2025) 3 SCC 241, was brought to the notice
of this Court. Even though this judgment dealt with the offense under the
provisions of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 05:56:03 pm )
the Apex Court went into the general principles and decided under what
circumstances a vehicle can be released pending the confiscation proceedings.
7. It was held that there is no absolute bar on releasing the vehicle during
confiscation proceedings. The Hon'ble Apex Court outlined the various
scenarios where a vehicle can be released and one such scenario is where the
owner of the vehicle is not an accused and the vehicle has been misused. The
case in hand falls under this category.
8. Even if the confiscation proceedings are completed and orders are
passed, there is an appellate remedy against such an order, and those
proceedings will not come to an end in the near future. Therefore, in the
interregnum, it must be seen as to whether the vehicle should remain in the
custody of the 1st respondent.
9. It is made clear that the release of the vehicle is only a temporary
measure and it has absolutely no bearing on the confiscation proceedings that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 05:56:03 pm )
has already been initiated. The release of vehicle at the best will only enable the
petitioner to retain custody of the vehicle. If ultimately, the confiscation
proceedings reaches its logical conclusion, the vehicle will be recovered from
the petitioner and it will either be put up for auction sale or the petitioner will be
asked to pay the penalty if he wants to retain the vehicle.
10. In light of the above discussion, there shall be a direction to the 1st
respondent to release the vehicle in favour of the petitioner by imposing
necessary conditions and such conditions should not involve any cash deposit. A
sworn affidavit shall be taken from the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner
will not in any manner alienate the vehicle or permit the vehicle to be used for
commission of any further offenses. In case of breach of any of the conditions
imposed by the 1st respondent, it is left open to the 1st respondent to seize the
vehicle and keep it within the custody of the 1st respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 05:56:03 pm )
11. In result, this Writ Petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs.
19-06-2025
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Internet:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
Jeni
To
1.The District Revenue Officer
Ariyalur, Ariyalur District.
2.The Inspector Of Police
Civil Supplies CID, Ariyalur,
Ariyalur District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 05:56:03 pm )
N.ANAND VENKATESH J.
Jeni
19-06-2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 05:56:03 pm )
