Madras HC seeks details of seized vehicles from authorities

Chennai: The Madras high court has directed the state government to submit a report of cases, where the vehicles of the private parties have been seized by the state by various departments and on account of pendency of litigation or otherwise, the custody of such vehicles are still with the state authorities.

A division bench comprising Justices Vineet Kothari and C.V.Karthikeyan also directed the state government to file a report disclosing as to how these vehicles are being managed and kept in custody and whether such vehicles are used by the authorities of the departments concerned or are just kept lying by the police stations concerned or in the premises of the departments concerned. The said report may be furnished within 6 weeks, the bench added.

The bench gave the directives while dismissing an appeal filed by the state government, challenging an order of a single judge, which directed the authorities in Krishnagiri district to release a Bolero vehicle, owned by M.Vimalan, which was seized after it was found to be involved in alleged transportation of PDS rice illegally.

Originally, after the seizure of his vehicle and the authorities imposing a fine of Rs 2.50 lakh upon him, Vimalan filed a petition and a single judge directed the authorities to release the vehicle on certain conditions including the deposit of Rs 15,000, finding it to be a first time offence by the petitioner and also further directed filing of undertaking and the documents relating to the said vehicle. Aggrieved, the state through its District Revenue Officer filed an appeal and obtained an interim stay.

The bench said the only argument raised before the court was that since a statutory alternate remedy was available to the petitioner, he was bound to avail the same and could not have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court and that therefore, the order passed on merits by the single judge deserved to be set aside. “We are satisfied that the present writ appeal filed by state has no merit and deserves to be dismissed. The exercise of writ jurisdiction is a discretionary power and the rule of alternative remedy is only a rule of discretion and does not create a bar against the exercise of writ jurisdiction by the high court”, the bench added.

The bench said it also find from the facts of the present case that the vehicle in question was seized way back on September 8, 2013 and was still lying with the said Revenue authorities in view of the stay granted by the co-ordinate bench of this court on October 27, 2014 while admitting the present writ appeal. “By sheer lapse of long time by now in 2019, the value of the vehicle in question would have definitely depreciated considerably. What the single judge directed by the order under appeal was only a conditional release of the vehicle in question upon deposit of a part of the amount of fine, finding it to be a first offence of the petitioner. We are not inclined to interfere with the said order under appeal before us. Therefore, we dismiss the present appeal filed by the State”, the bench added and gave the above directives.