2015 (12) TMI 1834 - HC - Companies Law

Release of seized vehicle - seizure of vehicle on the allegation that it was used for illegal transportation of sand and that he has made an application, dated 01.12.2015, to respondent No.2, who is the competent authority, for release of the seized vehicle - petitioner s grievance is that no action has been taken by respondent No.2 on his application so far - HELD THAT - It is appropriate that respondent No.2 considers release of the seized vehicle. Since the petitioner has already submitted his application, dated 01.12.2015, to the said respondent, he is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders as per the aforementioned G.Os. for release of the seized vehicle within a period of three days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Seizure of petitioner's lorry for alleged illegal transportation of sand.
2. Petitioner's application for release of seized vehicle not acted upon by respondent No.2.
3. Competency of respondent No.2 to release the seized vehicle as per relevant government orders.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to declare the seizure of his lorry as illegal and arbitrary. The vehicle was seized on the grounds of allegedly being used for illegal transportation of sand. The petitioner requested a direction for the release of the seized vehicle, emphasizing that the action taken by respondent No.2 was unjustified.

2. The petitioner highlighted that despite submitting an application for the release of the seized vehicle on 01.12.2015 to respondent No.2, no action had been taken on his request. This failure to address the application within a reasonable time formed a significant part of the petitioner's grievance, prompting the legal intervention through the writ petition.

3. During the hearing, it was revealed that the competency of respondent No.2 to release the seized vehicle was governed by specific government orders, namely G.O.Ms.No.3 and G.O.Ms.No.15 of the Industries & Commerce (Mines-I) Department. These orders outlined the authority and procedure for the release of seized vehicles in cases related to illegal activities like sand transportation. The court directed respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner's application and issue appropriate orders for the release of the vehicle within three days, in accordance with the relevant government orders.

In conclusion, the High Court disposed of the writ petition, instructing respondent No.2 to act promptly on the petitioner's application for the release of the seized vehicle. The court's decision was based on the application of the relevant government orders and the need for timely resolution of the matter. Additionally, any pending interim relief petitions were deemed unnecessary following the disposal of the main writ petition.