IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2011 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 6831 of 2011(D) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. UMMER, S/O. MOIDEEN, AGED 26 YEARS, PARAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, ALOOR, PATTITHARA P.O., THRITHALA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. JIMSHAD, S/O. MOHAMMED P.V, AGED 22 YEARS, PALLIPURATHVALAPPIL HOUSE, CHAZHIYATTIRI P.O, PERINGODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN SMT.PREETHY R. NAIR SRI.FRINSO MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OTTAPPALAM. 3. TH VILLAGE OFFICER, CHALISSERY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHALISSERY POLICE STATION, CHALISSERY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.6831 OF 2011(D) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T First Petitioner claims to be the registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.KL 17C 8111 and the second petitioner claims to be the registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration No KL 9S 5910. According to the petitioners the 3rd respondent seized the vehicles alleging violation of the provisions of Conservation of Paddy and Wet Land Act, 2008 and forwarded the same to the first respondent who is seized of the matter. It is the case of the petitioners that since the 3rd respondent does not have any power of seizure, the whole proceedings are illegal and without jurisdiction. Be that as it may, the petitioners have also moved Exts.P4 and P5 applications before the first respondent seeking interim custody of the vehicle. On those applications also orders have not been passed. It is in these circumstances the writ petition is filed. 2. Admittedly, the first respondent is seized of the proceedings and therefore it if for the petitioners to urge their contentions on the merits of the controversies before the first WPC.No.6831 /2011 :2 : respondent. As at present I find merit in the grievance of the petitioners that their applications seeking interim custody of the vehicles evidenced by Exts.P4 and P5 have not been considered by the first respondent. Taking note of this grievance, I direct that the first respondent will consider Exts.P4 and P5 with notice to the petitioners and pass orders on the request of the petitioners for interim custody of the vehicles within 4 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/