Madras High Court
S. Vaidyanathan vs The Tahsildar on 15 April, 2019
Author: S.Vaidyanathan
Bench: S.Vaidyanathan, P.T. Asha
1
W.P.No.34656 of 2018
and
W.M.P.No.40183 of 2018
S. VAIDYANATHAN, J.
AND
P.T. ASHA, J.
(Order of the Court was made by S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.)
This Matter is listed today before us under the caption “for being
mentioned” on the Orders of the Hon'ble Chief Justice dated 15.04.2019.
2. This Court, by an order dated 27.12.2018, had disposed of the above
Writ Petition, by observing in Paragraph 4 of the Order that if any
representation is filed by the Petitioner, the same shall be considered by the
concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate and orders be passed thereon with regard
to the release of the vehicle within a period of five days, on merits and in
accordance with law.
3. For the sake of convenience, Paragraphs 3 and 4 are extracted
hereinbelow:
“3.The petitioner seeks a direction to the
respondents to release the petitioner's vehicle, which was
seized on 04.12.2018 on the basis that the said vehicle
was carrying one unit of sand illegally. It is also seen that
an F.I.R. has already been registered against the
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
petitioner's vehicle and orders have also been issued for
producing the vehicle before the concerned Jurisdictional
Magistrate.
4. In keeping with the order of the Division Bench
of this Court dated 29.10.2018 made in WP (MD)
Nos.19936 of 2017 and 7595 of 2018, the petitioner shall
move the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate for the
release of the said vehicle by way of a fresh
representation within five days from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order. On receipt of the said
representation, the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate
shall consider the petitioner's representation and pass
appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law,
after affording due opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner as well as any of the interested parties, on or
before 31.01.2019.”
4. It is represented by the Petitioner that pursuant to the orders of this
Court, a representation was made on 22.01.2019 to the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.I, Jayankondam, seeking to release the vehicle and the learned
Magistrate has passed an order on 31.01.2019 in Cr.M.P.No.224 of 2019, stating
that any application regarding release of vehicle can be filed only before the
Special Court in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Madurai Bench of Madras
High Court dated 29.10.2018.
5. It is pertinent to mention here that in our order dated 27.12.2018,
there was a specific direction to the Magistrate to consider and pass orders on
the representation purely on merits and as per law and not to reject the
http://www.judis.nic.in
3
Application blindly at the threshold, after taking into account the orders
passed by the Hon'ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in the case of
Gandhi vs. The Tahsildar, Thirverumbudur Taluk, Trichy and another,
reported in CDJ 2018 MHC 6465 and Muthu vs. The District Collector,
Pudukkottai District and Others, reported in CDJ 2018 MHC 7179.
6. It is true that as per the orders of the Hon'ble Madurai Bench of
Madras High Court, reported in CDJ 2018 MHC 7179 (cited supra) especially
Paragraph No.13 (xvi), any application for release of vehicle etc., can only be
filed before the Special Court. However, while hearing the matters in the case
of M.Chakravarthi vs. The Assistant Director, Thiruvallur District
[W.P.Nos.34672 and 34553 of 2018] decided on 27.12.2018 in Paragraph
No.5, it was represented by the learned counsel on either side that no Special
Court has been constituted so far and keeping in mind the said submissions,
this Court had specifically directed the Petitioner herein to submit a
representation before the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate, seeking release
of the vehicle in question. In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned
Judicial Magistrate No.1, Jayankondam, instead of dismissing the application
filed by the Petitioner for want of jurisdiction, ought to have taken the same
http://www.judis.nic.in
4
on file and passed orders on merits and in accordance with law in one way or
the other, if he otherwise comes under the nomenclature “the concerned
Magistrate” to deal with the case. The shallow attitude of the Magistrate is
unacceptable and perhaps, such dismissal of the Petition by the Magistrate
would have been on account of the reason that in the very same judgment of
the Hon'ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, reported in CDJ 2018 MHC
7179 (cited supra), it was held as follows:
“(xvii) Any violation of the above would constitute
a contempt of the order passed by this Court, for which,
appropriate application can either be filed before the
First Bench of this Court or any other Bench as per the
direction of the Hon'ble Chief Justice.”
7. It is one of the principles of the administration of justice that justice
should not only be done but it should be seen to be done. Hence, we hereby
clarify that it is the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate (not the Special
Court), who has to take up matter and decide the issue with respect to release
of the vehicle. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Jayankondam is, at first,
expected to determine and render a finding as to whether he is the concerned
jurisdictional Magistrate or not and if so, then proceed further to pass orders
http://www.judis.nic.in
5
on the representation of the petitioner, bearing in mind the observations made
hereinabove and also the earlier order dated 27.12.2018. If he is not the
concerned Magistrate to decide the issue, he shall specify the name of the
Magisterial Court and forward all the files to the said Court forthwith.
[S.V.N.,J.] [P.T.A.,J.]
29.04.2019
Index: Yes / No
Internet: Yes / No
mps/ar
Note: Issue order copy on 30.04.2019
http://www.judis.nic.in
6
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
AND
P.T. ASHA, J.
mps/ar
W.P.No.34656 of 2018
29.04.2019
http://www.judis.nic.in
7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.12.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
W.P.No.34656 of 2018
and WMP No.40183 of 2018
Sathya ...Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Tahsildar,
Taluk Office,
Udayarpalayam Taluk,
Ariyalur District.
2. The Sub-Inspector of Police,
Vikkiramangalam Police Station,
Udayarpalayam Taluk,
Ariyalur District. ...Respondents
Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the
respondents to release the petitioner's Ashok Leyland lorry bearing
Regn.No.TN46 E 3817, seized on 04.12.2018 and kept under the
custody of the 2nd respondent by an Order Na.Ka.A1/10222/2018
dated 18.12.2018.
http://www.judis.nic.in
8
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Ravichandran
For Respondents : Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan
Special Government Pleader (Incharge)
ORDER
(Order of the Court was delivered by P.T. ASHA, J.) The writ petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to release the petitioner's Ashok Leyland lorry bearing Registration No.TN46 E 3817, seized on 04.12.2018 and kept under the custody of the second respondent by an order dated 18.12.2018 in Na.Ka.A1/10222/2018.
2. We have heard Mr.T.Ravichandran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
3.The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to release the petitioner's vehicle, which was seized on 04.12.2018 on the basis that the said vehicle was carrying one unit of sand illegally. It is also seen that an F.I.R. has already been registered against the petitioner's vehicle and orders have also been issued for producing the vehicle http://www.judis.nic.in 9 before the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate.
4. In keeping with the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 29.10.2018 made in WP (MD) Nos.19936 of 2017 and 7595 of 2018, the petitioner shall move the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate for the release of the said vehicle by way of a fresh representation within five days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the said representation, the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate shall consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as any of the interested parties, on or before 31.01.2019.
5.This writ petition stands disposed of on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[S.V.N.J.,] [P.T.A.J.,]
27.12.2018
Index: Yes/no
Internet: Yes /No
speaking order/non speaking order http://www.judis.nic.in 10 kj/jv http://www.judis.nic.in 11 S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
and P.T. ASHA , J.
(kj/jv)
1. The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Udayapalayam Taluk, Ariyalur District.
2. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Vikkiramangalam Police Station, Udayarpalayam Taluk, Ariyalur District.
W.P.No.34656 of 2018 and WMP No.40183 of 2018
27.12.2018 http://www.judis.nic.in