IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST AUGUST 2011 / 9TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 23569 of 2011(U) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- B. SURESH KUMAR, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.BHASKARAN PILLAI, MELETHEKKENATTU HOUSE, KULATHOOR, KOTTANGAL, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.SABU S.KALLARAMOOLA, SRI.S.NIDHEESH. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, RANNY, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 672. 2. THE CONSERVATOR OF FOREST SOUTH CIRCLE, KOLLAM-690 001. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.BENNY VARGHESE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/08/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 23569 of 2011(U) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22/08/2005 IN C.M.A. NO.64/98 PASSED BY THE DISTRICT COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 06/10/2010 IN WP(C) NO. 4980/2006 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF REMITTANCE DATED 19/05/2011. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22/07/2011 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).23569/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 31st day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. A Mini lorry bearing registration No.KL3A 6825, of which petitioner is the registered owner, was involved in a proceedings under Section 61A of the Forest Act and the order dated 18.8.1998 was issued confiscating the said vehicle. Petitioner submits that when the adjudication was pending, the vehicle was released to him on his depositing the title deed concerning his property in Survey No.42/3 of Kottungal Village, as security. It is stated that the order of confiscation was set aside by the District Court in C.M.A.64/98 filed by the petitioner and that in W.P.(C).4980/2006 filed by the respondents, this Court rendered Ext.P2 judgment confirming the order of the District Court. It is stated that despite of all this, the documents deposited by the petitioner concerning the property mentioned above, are not released and with this grievance the writ petition is filed. 3. Further, Ext.P4 reply received by the petitioner under the W.P.(C). 2 provisions of the Right to Information Act show that aggrieved by Ext.P2 judgment of this Court in the writ petition referred to above, respondents have already filed S.L.P before the Apex Court. If that be the situation, this Court will not be justified in directing the respondents to release the documents of title deed deposited by the petitioner. 4. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is willing to furnish the bank guarantee for the value of the vehicle assessed by the respondents and that the documents may be directed to be released. If, as stated by the petitioner the bank guarantee from a Nationalised Bank is furnished, there is no reason why the documents shall not be released. 5. Therefore, I direct that if the petitioner furnishes the bank guarantee for the value of the vehicle as assessed by the respondents, the first respondent will pass appropriate orders enabling the petitioner to get the documents of title deposited released. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs