JUDGMENT : G.R. SWAMINATHAN, J. Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to release the petitioner's vehicle i.e. Tipper Lorry, bearing Registration No. TN 30 AA 3826 sized by the 3rd respondent on 12.08.2019 by considering the petitioner's representation dated 10.09.2020. 1. Heard the learned counsel on either side. By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. 2. The petition mentioned vehicle was seized in connection with the alleged illegal transportation of sand. 3. The learned Additional Government Pleader states that even though the criminal case has been registered, the vehicle in question is yet to be produced before the jurisdictional Court. The case is still under investigation. I am of the view that so long as the vehicle has not been produced before the Jurisdictional Court, the Writ Court will always have the power to direct for the release of the vehicle. 4. The petitioner's counsel gives an undertaking that the petitioner will see to it that the vehicle is not involved in any other offences of similar nature. The vehicle will be produced before the authority or the Court concerned as and when required. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the vehicle will not be alienated. 5. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is placed on record. If the undertaking given before this Court is breached, the benefit of this order will stand recalled and the vehicle in question will be taken back to custody and it will be released only after getting orders from this Court on such terms as this Court may deem it fit to impose. 6. I am of the view that keeping the petition mentioned vehicle in the custody of the respondents is not going to serve any purpose. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and Others vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283, has held as follows:- “17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and Others vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283, has held as follows:- “17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles.” 7. The learned Additional Government Pleader states that the petitioner is having two previous cases of the same nature. Initially, I do not want to grant relief. The petitioner's counsel states that the petitioner would file an affidavit of undertaking to the effect that neither he nor the petition mentioned vehicle would ever get involved in any criminal case. If this undertaking given by the petitioner is breached, it is open to the respondents to bring it to my notice and I will not hesitate to recall this order and the petition mentioned vehicle also will be taken back to custody. The petitioner's counsel on instructions states that the petitioner is willing to file an undertaking affidavit to this effect. Such an undertaking affidavit will be filed before this Court within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. The petitioner's counsel states that vehicle in question is in the custody for more than a year. Taking note of the same, I am inclined to show some indulgence while fixing the quantum. 9. Therefore, the respondents are directed to release the said vehicle subject to the following conditions:- (a) The petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) in favour of the Officer-in-Charge, High Court Legal Services Committee, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai, S.B. A/c. No. 496037387, IFSC: IDIB000H040, Indian Bank, High Court Branch, Madurai. It will be a non refundable payment. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to spend the amount for appropriate welfare activities such as feeding the disadvantaged communities in Madurai District. (b) The petitioner shall not alienate or encumber the vehicle in question till the proceedings are completed. It will be a non refundable payment. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to spend the amount for appropriate welfare activities such as feeding the disadvantaged communities in Madurai District. (b) The petitioner shall not alienate or encumber the vehicle in question till the proceedings are completed. (c) The petitioner shall produce all the documents pertaining to the ownership of the seized vehicle. (d) As and when the respondents call for the vehicle for enquiry, the petitioner has to produce the vehicle in question and he shall cooperate with the enquiry to be conducted by the respondents. 10. Upon completion of these formalities, the respondents shall release the vehicle forthwith without any delay. If this undertaking given by the petitioner is breached, the petitioner will not be entitled to interim release of the vehicle in future. The Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.