IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 3RD SEPTEMBER 2010 / 12TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 27405 of 2010(A) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- V.PANEER SELVAM, S/O.VAGRAN, NO.3-244, MADATHUMPETTY KARA, MADATHUMPETTY VILLAGE, KRISHNAAGIRI DISTRICT, TAMILNADU. BY ADV. SRI.S.ARUN RAJ. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- FOREST RANGE OFFICER, FOREST RANGE OFFICE, DEVIKULAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY SPL. GOVT. PLEADER (FORESTS) SRI. BENNY VARGHESE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/09/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.27405 of 2010 (A) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 3rd day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T In this writ petition, what is sought for by the petitioner is to quash the proceedings initiated against him under Section 52 of the Kerala Forest Act. According to the petitioner, the said proceedings are not sustainable and if at all, the proceedings can only be under the provisions of the Kerala Preservation of Trees Act. 2. As at present, the proceedings are still pending against the petitioner and no final order has been passed. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to canvass this contention before the authority, who seized of the proceedings and invite an order. Thereafter only can the petitioner move the statutory form against the proceedings. Therefore, at this stage, the relief sought for is premature and I am not inclined to consider the same. 3. Irrespective of the above, it is noticed that the Hydraulic Excavator belonging to the petitioner is still under detention. According to the petitioner, the said equipment is kept in the open space exposing it to sun and rain. Having regard to the fact that the WP(C) No.27405/2010 -2- proceedings are yet to be finalised, I do not think it that it will be any advantage to the respondent to have the equipment in detention. Therefore, I feel it is only appropriate to direct the respondent to release the equipment to the petitioner provided the petitioner furnishes sufficient safeguards to protect the interest of the department. 4. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing that it will be open to the respondent to get the value of the equipment assessed and if the petitioner furnishes Bank Guarantee for the value so assessed, the equipment will be provisionally released to him. The petitioner shall also undertake before the respondent not to alienate or encumber the equipment in question, until the finalisation of the proceedings, which are pending against him. It is directed that the respondent shall complete the adjudication proceedings pending against the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within eight weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg