Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2966 (MAD)

G. Pandy v. District Collector

2014-08-28

K.K.SASIDHARAN

body2014
Judgment 1. The Tractor bearing Registration No.TN-72-U-0402 and the Trailer bearing Registration No.TN-72-V-3154 owned by the petitioner were seized by the fourth respondent on 21.01.2014 alleging transportation of minerals. Thereafter, the second respondent initiated statutory proceedings. 2. The petitioner approached the second respondent with an application dated 24.07.2014, for release of the vehicle pending disposal of proceedings. However, there was no follow up action to dispose of the application for interim custody. The petitioner is therefore before this Court to direct the respondent to release the vehicle. 3. The statutory authority is now seized of the matter. The question as to whether the petitioner has made out a case for interim custody of the vehicle is essentially an issue to be decided by the second respondent at the first instance. It is not open to the Court to adjudicate the issue without giving an opportunity to the statutory authority to exercise its function in accordance with law. 4. The jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a writ petition for release of vehicle, pending disposal of confiscation proceedings without approaching the Competent Authority at the first instance, came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in Deputy Commissioner of Civil Supplies, City South, Chennai and another vs. S.Damodaran, 2007 (3) MLJ 196 . The Division Bench was of the view that the petitioner should approach the Competent Authority at the first instance before approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The relevant observation reads thus:- "13. ............. a) In case any essential commodity or any commodity, package, vehicle, animal, etc., is seized or confiscated and the person from whom such commodity or vehicle is seized, or the owner of the commodity or vehicle intends to get an order for release of the commodity or vehicle, they should first avail the alternative remedy before the competent authority for release of such commodity or vehicle for the grounds and reasons as may be taken by the aggrieved persons; b) In case such application for release of the commodity, package or vehicle is filed, the competent authority/appellate authority will dispose of the application immediately, preferably within a week. In case of any adverse decision, the ground should be communicated to the applicant; c) Only when the competent authority/appellate authority fail to discharge their duty, the concerned person may move straight away before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for appropriate relief; d) However, it is always open to the High Court to pass appropriate order under Article 226, but generally it should be reluctant to grant such relief if the party fails to take recourse to alternative remedy. " 5. The second respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the application submitted by the petitioner for release of the vehicle on merits and as per law, as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case, the second respondent has already quantified the amount payable by the petitioner, the said amount shall be paid and immediately thereafter, the vehicle shall be released. 6. The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs.