Judgment :- 1. The writ petition is directed against the order of the second respondent dated 14.3.2011, by which the second respondent by quoting the Election Code of Conduct has seized an amount of Rs.4 Lakhs from the representative of the petitioner, which amount is stated to have been carried for the purpose of making payment to workers. 2. The seizure letter dated 14.3.2011, which is as follows: TAMIL shows that an amount of Rs.4 Lakhs has been recovered from C.P.R.Balakrishnanan, who is stated to have carried the amount on behalf of the petitioner. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that while effecting seizure, the second respondent has not even informed the petitioner as to the steps to be taken for the purpose of getting back the said amount. It is the further case of the petitioner that his representative has substantiated before the second respondent the reason for which the amount was being carried to the effect that it is not for election purpose and in spite of it, the same has been seized without any reason and the petitioner is at loss to understand as to whom to approach and how to get back the amount. Hence, he preferred the present writ petition on the ground that the act of the respondents is arbitrary and illegal and suffers from non application of mind. 4.1. Mr.M.R.Raghavan, learned counsel appearing for the State Election Commission, who was directed to take notice on behalf of the first respondent, would submit that the seizure has been done on behalf of the Election Officers, namely the District Election Officer, who happens to be the District Collector, based on the instructions issued by the Election Commission of India in respect of expenditure monitoring in elections. 4.2. He would submit that whenever the team of the Revenue Officers and the Police have any suspicion that any cash or illegal liquor are being carried, on checking the vehicles, they have a right to seize, if the amount carried is unexplained properly. He would bring to the notice of this Court about Clause 4.7.1 of the Instructions on Expenditure Monitoring in Elections, which is as follows: "4.7.1. Static Surveillance Team: This team will keep a watch on large quantities of cash, illegal liquor, any suspicious item or arms being carried in their area. He would bring to the notice of this Court about Clause 4.7.1 of the Instructions on Expenditure Monitoring in Elections, which is as follows: "4.7.1. Static Surveillance Team: This team will keep a watch on large quantities of cash, illegal liquor, any suspicious item or arms being carried in their area. For this purpose checking and search of vehicles and persons can be carried out by the surveillance team by putting check posts on major roads or arterial roads, right from the date of the notification. If unexplained cash without proper documents is found in the possession of any person and is suspected to be used for bribing the voters, it shall be seized and action taken under the relevant provisions of the law. The whole event of checking and seizure is to be videographed by a video team, which will submit the copy of the video CD to the Assistant Expenditure Observer. The placements of these check posts is to be worked out in consultation with Assistant Expenditure Observer." 4.3. According to him, the effect of the rules is being published in all newspapers, both Tamil and English, and also shown in various television channels, so as to enable the people to understand the implication and follow the same in such event of seizure. He would also submit that since the respondents were not satisfied about the reason assigned for carrying huge quantity of amount the same was recovered by them and thereafter, the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Inv), Unit-IV(2), Chennai – 600 034, by executing the warrant of authorisation under Section 132A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has taken over the amount from the second respondent. Therefore, according to him, if only the petitioner justifies the purpose for which the amount was carried, the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Inv), Unit-IV(2), Chennai – 600 034 would release the same. 5. Considering the above said facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that while it is the duty on the part of the respondents to see that the Election Code of Conduct is scrupulously followed, it must be ensured that under the guise of following the rules strictly, the innocent people should not be targeted and therefore, it is desirable that the Election Commission makes publication in the language known to the people of this State about the above said provisions. Moreover, as and when seizure is effected, it should be stated as to whom the citizen has to approach and what all particulars have to be furnished. It is also expected that when a seizure order is made like the impugned notice, it is the duty on the part of the Election Officer to indicate in the said order as to the next course of action, viz., as to which authority he has to approach and so on, and these particulars are necessary not only to see that the Election Code of Conduct is properly implemented, but also to make sure that it will not have adverse effect on the innocent and genuine persons. 6. On the facts of the present case, since it is stated that the amount has been taken over by the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Inv), Unit-IV(2), Chennai – 600 034, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction against the petitioner to approach the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Inv), Unit-IV(2), Chennai – 600 034 with all necessary records and the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Inv), Unit-IV(2), Chennai – 600 034, on being satisfied about the records produced by the petitioner, shall pass appropriate orders within one week from the date when the petitioner approaches him with a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2011 is closed.