JUDGMENT 1. - The instant miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner Finance Company challenging the order dated 19.7.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur in Cr. Revision No. 239/2010 whereby the learned Revisional Court upheld the order dated 19.5.2010 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for selling the vehicle bearing registration No. RJ 19 1G 2753 was rejected. 2. It has been claimed in the petition that the vehicle in question was financed by the petitioner company and was seized during the course of investigation of an F.I.R. registered at Sardarpura. The vehicle was directed to be returned back to the petitioner on Supurdaginama because the purchaser non-petitioner No. 2 failed to pay instalments thereof. It was prayed on behalf of the Finance Company that it should be permitted to put the vehicle in question to auction because it was deteriorating because of lying idle for a long period of time. The said application was rejected by the trial Court by the order dated 19.5.2010. Being aggrieved by the rejection of application, the petitioner preferred a revision. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the revision vide order dated 19.7.2010 holding that earlier while deciding the earlier revision filed against the order rejecting such application on 6.9.2008, the Revisional Court did not grant such permission and only remanded the matter to the trial Court, and therefore, granting such permission would amount to reviewing its earlier order. Hence, the instant miscellaneous petition. 3. A notice of the petition was issued to the respondent No. 2 but nobody has appeared on his behalf despite service. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner Finance Company was having a lien over the vehicle in question as it had financed the same. The respondent No. 2 (hirer) who had taken the finance facility did not pay the instalments towards hire purchase agreement on which the vehicle was seized by the Finance Company. Thereafter, the same has been handed over to the Finance Company on interim Supurdaginama. Placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in General Insurance Counsel & Ors. The respondent No. 2 (hirer) who had taken the finance facility did not pay the instalments towards hire purchase agreement on which the vehicle was seized by the Finance Company. Thereafter, the same has been handed over to the Finance Company on interim Supurdaginama. Placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in General Insurance Counsel & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, being Writ Petition (C) No. 14 of 2008 decided on 19.4.2010 reported in 2010(6) SCC 768 , learned counsel contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court has ruled in the said judgment that the insurer can be permitted to auction the vehicle on its furnishing, an undertaking/guarantee to the Court that the proceeds from the sale/auction shall be subject to the final adjudication of the case by the Magistrate. Learned counsel thus prayed that the case of the Finance Company also stands on identical footing that the with that of the insurer and that the Finance Company should also be permitted to auction the vehicle. Reliance has also been placed by the learned counsel on the order passed by the learned Single Bench of Madras High Court in the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu being Crl. O.P. Nos. 5278/2007 and 9744/2010 decided on 9.7.2010 . 5. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar. Perused the order impugned and the judgments cited. 6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in General Insurance Council's case (supra) issued following directions with regard to seized vehicles: "(A) xxx (B) xxx (C) Insurer would submit an undertaking/guarantee to remit the proceeds from the sale/auction of the vehicle conducted by the Insurance Company in the event that the Magistrate finally adjudicates that the rightful ownership of the vehicle does not vest with the insurer. The undertaking/guarantee would be furnished at the time of release of the vehicle, pursuant to the application for release of the recovered vehicle. Insistence on personal bonds may be dispensed with looking to the corporate structure of the insurer." 7. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that there could not have been any reason for the learned Courts below to have denied permission to the petitioner to auction the vehicle in question as keeping the vehicle in a redundant condition in the premises of the Finance Company would render it waster. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that there could not have been any reason for the learned Courts below to have denied permission to the petitioner to auction the vehicle in question as keeping the vehicle in a redundant condition in the premises of the Finance Company would render it waster. On the other hand if the vehicle is put to auction then whatever cost is fetched from the auction would be at the disposal of the Magistrate to award it to the person best entitled thereto. 8. Resultantly, the miscellaneous petition is allowed. The order dated 19.5.2010 passed by the learned C.J.M., Jodhpur and the order dated 19.7.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur are set aside and the petitioner is permitted to auction the vehicle in question. An undertaking/guarantee shall be submitted on behalf of the petitioner that if the learned Magistrate finally adjudicates that the original ownership of the vehicle does not vest with the petitioner, then the auction money shall be deposited in the Court for the disposal thereof as per the discretion of the t rial Court.Petition allowed. *******