IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2010 / 22TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 952 of 2010(T) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- NILAS.P.A. SON OF ABDUTTY, AGED 25 YEARS, PALLIPURATH HOUSE, KOTHAPARAMBU.P.O., S.N.PURAM DESOM, S.N.PURAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLOOR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT (REGISTERED OWNER OF A MINI LORRY BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL-07-U-3366). BY ADV. MR.P.M.ZIRAJ. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KODUNGALLOOR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. P. NARAYANAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/01/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.952 of 2010-T - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12th day of January, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner is the agreement owner of a mini lorry bearing registration No.KL-07-U-3366 with a valid route permit. It is the case of the petitioner that the above vehicle has been seized by the 2nd respondent on 5.1.2010 with an allegation that the vehicle was found transporting river sand without valid permit. It is the case of the petitioner that the said vehicle has nothing to do with the unauthorised transportation of river sand. The petitioner purchased sand from a sand dealer of Tamil Nadu and transported the same to the State of Kerala. The petitioner also paid sufficient value added tax to the State of Kerala in the check post. It is the contention of the petitioner that in spite of submitting all these facts to the second respondent at the time of seizure and producing all the documents to prove his claim, the second respondent produced the vehicle to the first respondent with the load of sand for adjudication. The petitioner submits that the first respondent has no authority to adjudicate the matter since the sand involved is not river sand. The petitioner therefore submitted Ext.P1 request before the first respondent to test the sample of the sand and also for wpc 952/2010 2 release of the vehicle. Since no orders are passed on Ext.P1, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Govt. Pleader. There will be a direction to the first respondent to take a decision on Ext.P1 within a period of seven days from the date of production of a copy of this judgment, in the light of the well settled principles laid down by this Court in various decisions and on such terms and conditions. The matter will be considered in accordance with law. There will be a further direction to the first respondent to pass final orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment with notice to the petitioner and the registered owner and after considering the pleas raised by the petitioner, on merits. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/