JUDGMENT : ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J. Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the second respondent to release the petitioner's vehicle Ashok Leyland Lorry bearing Reg. No. TN-63U-2049 based on the representation given by him dated 14.07.2020 within the time stipulated by this Court. 1. This writ petition has been filed for a Mandamus to direct the second respondent to release the petitioner's vehicle Ashok Leyland Lorry bearing Reg. No. TN-63U-2049 based on the representation given by him, dated 14.07.2020 within the time stipulated by this Court. 2. Heard Mr. S.M.P. Amalan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. M. Rajarajan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. By consent of both parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner of the vehicle Ashok Leyland Lorry bearing Reg. No. TN-63U-2049. According to him, on 21.03.2020, the second respondent police registered a F.I.R. in Crime No.153 of 2020 as against the petitioner for the alleged offences under Section 379 of IPC r/w 21(5) of MMDR Act on the allegation that the vehicle was used to transport sand illegally. The petitioner's vehicle was seized by the second respondent on the same date. 5. According to the petitioner, the seized vehicle is now being kept in the open place and due to exposure of sun and rain and the vagaries of nature, the vehicle will lose its value and may, ultimately become a wreck and worthless. In such circumstances, this Writ Petition has been filed seeking for release of the said vehicle Ashok Leyland Lorry bearing Reg. No. TN-63U-2049. 6. The petitioner has also given a representation on 14.07.2020 to the respondents seeking for release of the said vehicle Ashok Leyland Lorry bearing Reg. No. TN-63U-2049. According to the petitioner, the said representation has not been considered by the respondents till date. As rightly contended by the petitioner, if the said vehicle, which was seized by the second respondent, is kept in the open place, it will not be useful to anyone in the near future and if it is continued to remain in the open, it has to face the vagaries of nature and ultimately will become a wreck and worthless. As rightly contended by the petitioner, if the said vehicle, which was seized by the second respondent, is kept in the open place, it will not be useful to anyone in the near future and if it is continued to remain in the open, it has to face the vagaries of nature and ultimately will become a wreck and worthless. However, whether the petitioner has committed the alleged offence or not can be adjudicated only after trial before the Criminal Court. Till such time, the vehicle cannot be kept idle. Therefore, this Court is inclined to grant relief to the petitioner subject to fulfillment of the following conditions:- (i) the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) in favour of the third respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (ii) the petitioner shall not alienate or encumber the vehicle in question till the proceedings are completed. (iii) the petitioner shall not change the colour and scheme of the vehicle. (iv) the petitioner shall not use the vehicle for any illegal activities. (v) before releasing the vehicle, the police authority shall take photographs of the vehicles at the cost of the petitioner. (vi) the petitioner shall produce all xerox copies of the documents pertaining to the ownership of the seized vehicle to the third respondent. (vii) 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. 7. Upon completion of the above mentioned formalities, the respondents shall release the vehicle Ashok Leyland Lorry bearing Reg. No. TN-63U-2049 to the petitioner forthwith and without any delay. If this undertaking given by the petitioner is breached, the petitioner will not be entitled for interim release of the vehicle in the future. As far as confiscation proceedings initiated against the seized vehicle is concerned, the same can go on without any interference. 8. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs.