2015 (9) TMI 31 - HC - Customs

Release of Seized Vehicle Petitioner seeking direction upon respondent 1 to 3 to release seized truck, seized by 3rd respondent Held that - admitted by petitioner that vehicle stands in name of fourth respondent It has not transferred in his name for want of clearance of loan amount availed from fourth respondent It was also not in dispute that vehicle was used to transport one metal idol and one stone idol in container and petitioner allege that he was not aware of above fact and that vehicle was given only to transport coconut Since vehicle was seized by officials of Customs Department and as petitioner was not owner of vehicle, relief sought by petitioner cannot be granted Hence, Petition dismissed as devoid of merits Decided against petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
1. Writ of Mandamus sought to release a seized truck.

Analysis:
The petitioner, engaged in transportation and shipping business, sought a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to release a truck seized by the Customs Department. The truck, registered under the name of a fourth respondent due to financing arrangements, was used to transport prohibited goods - a metal idol and a stone idol. The petitioner claimed innocence, stating the vehicle was provided only for transporting coconuts, and he had no knowledge of the prohibited items. The respondents argued that the petitioner, not being the owner of the vehicle, lacked the standing to seek its release through a Writ of Mandamus. The Court noted the ownership status and the use of the vehicle for transporting prohibited goods, ultimately dismissing the petition due to lack of merit as the petitioner was not the owner of the seized truck.

This case involved a dispute over the ownership and detention of a truck seized for transporting prohibited goods. The petitioner, not the registered owner but using the vehicle, sought release through a Writ of Mandamus. The Court considered the petitioner's lack of ownership and involvement in the transportation of prohibited items, leading to the dismissal of the petition. The judgment highlighted the importance of ownership rights and the limitations on seeking legal remedies for detained property when not the rightful owner. The decision underscored the need for clear ownership documentation and adherence to legal procedures in cases involving seized assets and prohibited activities.