P.SUBRAMANI Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KARUR DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel on either side.

(2.) The petitioner seeks release of the petition mentioned vehicle. Usually, in such cases, this court will direct the petitioner to remit certain sum as a non refundable cost.

(3.) The petitioner's counsel would submit that in the case on hand, the seizure ought not to have been made. He would further contend that the petitioner is having permit to transport the sand. This Court, therefore, called upon the respondents to file their counter. The counter has already been filed. I went through the materials on record. It is seen that the petitioner had earlier filed Crl.O.P.(MD).No.7453 of 2020 and obtained anticipatory bail vide order dated 21.07.2020. The learned Judge has specifically observed that the permit is valid upto 11.07.2020 till 06.30 a.m., whereas the vehicle was seized on 10.07.2020 at 10.45 p.m.