IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2009 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 29490 of 2009(E) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- UMMER, S/O.SEETHI HAJI, NELLITHIMARU HOUSE, PANAJE.P.O, PUTHUR, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. MR.T.G.RAJENDRAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, KANNUR. 2. THE RANGE OFFICER, KASARAGOD FOREST RANGE, KASARAGOD. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R3 BY SPL. GOVT. PLEADER (FORESTS) MR. T.H. HANIL KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/10/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.N.RAVINDRAN,J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.29490 of 2009 - E ---------------------------------------- Dated 27th October, 2009 Judgment Heard Sri.T.G.Rajendran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.P.H.Hanil Kumar, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the State of Kerala. 2. The petitioner is the owner of a goods vehicle bearing registration No.KA/19B 2078, that was seized by the forest officers. The grievance voiced by the petitioner in this writ petition is that though he had submitted Ext.P1 application before the Divisional Forest Officer, Kannur on 10.8.2009 seeking release of his vehicle, till date, orders have not been passed thereon. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the Divisional Forest Officer to release the vehicle to him by way of interim custody. 3. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits on instructions that an order confiscating the petitioner's vehicle was passed on 22.10.2009 under section 61A of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961. He submits W.P.(C) No.29490/2009 2 that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order, his remedy is to move the District Court in appeal under section 61D of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961. In the light of the fact that the petitioner's vehicle has already been ordered to be confiscated, interim custody cannot be given by this Court. The petitioner has a remedy by way of appeal before the District Court. In such circumstances, I find no reason to entertain this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. The respondents are directed to communicate a copy of the order passed on 22.10.2009 to the petitioner expeditiously and in any event, within one week from today. It will be open to the petitioner to challenge the said order in other appropriate proceedings. P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge vaa