IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2011 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 28240 of 2011(D) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- VINODKUMAR.K.K, S/O. KUNJAN PILLAI, KOYIKKAL HOUSE, KAROOR, MUNDACKAL.P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.G.HARIHARAN, SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. VILLAGE OFFICER, KURICHITHANAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 001. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MARANGATTUPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 635. 3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 141. 4. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM - 686 001. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.J.RAJASREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.28240/2011 D APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT-P1- TRUE COPY OF THE GOODS CARRIAGE PERMIT RELATING TO VEHICLE BEARING REGISTRATION NO. KL-09W-6271. EXHIBIT-P2 -TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 04/04/2011 SENT BY THE TAHSILDAR ADDRESSED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P3- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. E-9-15446/2011 DATED 07/06/2011. EXHIBIT-P4- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN C.M.APPEAL NO. 28/2011 DATED 12/10/2011 BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (SPECIAL), KOTTAYAM. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 28240 of 2011 D ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 28th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Petitioner is the owner of a lorry bearing No.KL-09W-6271. Proceedings were initiated against the vehicle in question under the provisions of Act 28 of 2008, at the instance of the first respondent The said proceedings culminated in Ext.P3 order of the District Collector, confiscating the vehicle. Petitioner challenged the order by filing C.M.Appeal No.28/2011 before the District Court, Kottayam. The appeal was heard and allowed as per Ext.P4 judgment, setting aside the order of the District Collector. Case of the petitioner is that, despite Ext.P4 judgment, the vehicle is not released by the respondents and therefore this writ petition is filed. 2. Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the copy of Ext.P4 was received by the respondents only on 25.10.2011. It is also submitted that W.P.(C) No.28240/11 : 2 : the finding of the District Court that the Village Officer was incompetent to seize the vehicle is illegal, in view of the provisions contained in Ordinance No.38/11, amending Act 28/2008. It is submitted that the said Ordinance was published on 28.04.2011 and that the provisions of the Ordinance came into force with effect from 12.08.2008. 3. Though there is substance in the submission of the learned Government Pleader, it is a fact that the provisions of the Ordinance were not brought to the notice of the District Court and it was therefore the District Court has rendered Ext.P4. At this stage, therefore, remedy available to the respondents is to get Ext.P4 reviewed or set aside in appropriate proceedings, and until then, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Ext.P4. 4. Therefore, I direct that on the production of a copy of this judgment, the second respondent will forthwith release the lorry to the petitioner. It is clarified that in the event Ext.P4 order is reviewed, or modified in any proceedings, it will be W.P.(C) No.28240/11 : 3 : open to the second respondent to call upon the petitioner to surrender the vehicle. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks/28/10