N.YASHVANTH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the above writ petition to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order dated 27.10.2014 and final order dated 22.12.2014 issued by the 4th respondent, to quash the same and further direct the 4th respondent to conduct the enquiry for proper disposal.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that the 6th respondent registered the first Information Report against the petitioner under Section 4(1) (a) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act (Transport) in Crime No.295 of 2014. Pursuant to the registration of the First Information Report, the Maruti Omni Car bearing Registration No.TN 38 AW 0599 was detained by the 6th respondent viz., Sub -Inspector of Police, Kinathukadavu Police Station and the petitioner's representation for the release of the vehicle was not considered by the respondents. By order dated 27.10.2014, the 4th respondent confiscated the Maruti Omni Car. Challenging the said order, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly contended that under section 14(4) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, (i) the petitioner should give notice in writing informing him of the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate the vehicle; (ii) should give an opportunity of making a representation in writing within a reasonable time, not exceeding fourteen days ; and (iii) giving an opportunity of being heard in the matter. The learned counsel further submitted that the 4th respondent had passed the impugned order without following the mandatory provisions of section 14(4) of the Act.