1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.06.2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE K. SUGUNA AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. ARUMUGHASWAMY W.A. (MD) No.525 of 2011 & M.P. (MD) No.1 of 2011 The Branch Manager State Bank of India Kamarajapuram Branch Thiruchirappalli 620 014 Appellant vs. M. Abimannan Respondent Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging the order dated 29.04.2011 passed in M.P. (MD) No.3 of 2011 in W.P. (MD) No.3041 of 2011. MP(MD)No.3/2011 in WP.No.3041/2011: Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to direct the respondent to handover the tractor bearing Registration No.TN 45 AJ 6400 which was seized by the respondent on 18.10.2010. W.P.No.3041/2011: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the tender notification of the respondent made in Thinathanthi dated 10.03.2011 and quash the same. For appellant Mr. S. Sethuraman For respondent Mr. D. Senthil JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. SUGUNA, J.) This writ appeal is filed as against the interim order dated 29.04.2011 passed by the Writ Court in M.P. (MD) No.3 of 2011 in W.P. (MD) No.3041 of 2011 by which the appellant bank was directed to release the vehicle since the respondent/writ petitioner had complied with the earlier interim order dated 16.03.2011 passed by this Court. 2. But, according to the learned counsel for the appellant bank, the actual amount due is Rs.5,36,250/-, whereas, the learned Single Judge has granted interim order on payment of Rs.75,000/- which is prima facie illegal and in the event of the release of vehicle to the respondent/writ petitioner, it will not be possible for the appellant bank either to get back the vehicle or the amount due from the writ petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. But, it is the stand of the learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner that the respondent/writ petitioner will pay the amount in easy instalments. 4. When it was suggested by this Court to the learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner that the vehicle can be directed to be released if the respondent/writ petitioner can pay the dues in two instalments, the said suggestion was not accepted by him. 5. Since the total amount due by the respondent/writ petitioner to the appellant bank is Rs.5,36,250/-, on payment of a meagre sum of Rs.75,000/-, the vehicle cannot be directed to be released and in our considered view, the order impugned in this writ appeal is not sustainable. 6. Consequently, the writ appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. However, Office is directed to post the writ petition in W.P. (MD) No.3041 of 2011 for final disposal in the first week of July 2011. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(P&A) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Branch Manager State Bank of India Kamarajapuram Branch Thiruchirappalli 620 014 Copy to: The Section officer, Writ Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1cc to Mr.D.Senthil, Advocate, Sr.No.19463 cad SMA/5.7.2011/4C/2P W.A. (MD) No.525 of 2011 21.06.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/