M.M. HUSSAIN SHARIEFF Vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, TUMKUR DISTRICT, THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, TIPTUR DIVISION AND THE TAHSILDAR, CHICKNAYAKANAHALLY TALUK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is before this Court seeking for issue of mandamus to direct respondent No. 1 to order for release of the vehicles i.e. Maruti Omni van bearing No. KA -04 1802 and Maruti Zen car bearing No. KA -01 P 2514. The brief facts are that on 4.12.2010 the 2nd and 3rd respondents along with the police and other staff members, had found that the petitioner had unauthorisedly stocked LPG cylinders and the vehicles in question were used for transport of the same. On the said allegation, the seizures including that of the above noticed vehicles has been made. Though at this stage, no opinion could be expressed with regard to the allegations made against the petitioner, what is necessary to be noticed is that the respondents have initiated action by having the FIR registered and the further proceedings are pending. In that view, since the release of the vehicles were sought by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent, by a communication dated 17.5.2011 has informed the petitioner that the vehicles could be released subject to furnishing bank guarantees of Rs. 75,000/ - and Rs. 85,000/ -, respectively.

(2.) THOUGH , from the prayer, a mandamus has been sought to direct the respondents to release the vehicles, from the very communication at Annexure -D dated 17.5.2011 it is seen that the 2nd respondent has already communicated to the petitioner that the vehicles would be released. However, in the grounds, the petitioner has contended that it should be released unconditionally, but I am of the opinion that such contention cannot be accepted until the proceedings initiated against the petitioner is concluded and the petitioner is absolved of the allegation made against him. Hence, to the extent of the 2nd respondent - Deputy Commissioner releasing the vehicles on condition of furnishing the bank guarantee, certainly the same would be justified and in any event, the said order has not been questioned in the instant petition. Therefore, the only consideration that is required to be made is as to whether the contention of the petitioner that the condition imposed therein to furnish bank guarantees of Rs. 75,000/ - and Rs. 85,000/ -, respectively, is not justified in as much as the value of the vehicles is lesser than that. On this aspect also, since the order itself has not been questioned and further, since the model of the vehicles and also the condition of the same is to be assessed and the security that is required to be furnished would require a factual determination, the same cannot be decided in the instant petition. Therefore, to the said extent, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to make appropriate representation to the 2nd respondent in reply to the communication dated 17.5.2011 and indicate therein these aspects of the matter relating to the amount for which the bank guarantee has been sought and in that regard, seek for modification of the order. If such reply is received, the 2nd respondent would thereafter look into these aspects of the matter and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.