IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2010 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 7424 of 2010(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- REGHUNADHAN, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.DAMODARAN, VAYALI VEENA BHAVAN, VECHOOR P.O., VECHOOR VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.NATESAN SRI.B.RENJITHKUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. 2. S.H.O., KADUTHURUTHY POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM. 3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADUTHURUTHY POLICE, KOTTAYAM. SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.7424 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the registered owner of KL.36-5372 open Tipper. This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P7 order passed by the District Collector wherein application for release of vehicle by way of interim custody stands dismissed on the ground that on an earlier occasion the vehicle was seized as it was involved in similar offences and the same was released on certain conditions. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order cannot be supported. It was also pointed out that when the vehicle was released on the earlier occasion by Ext.P8, but so far the final order has not been passed. As far as the present seizure is concerned the petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.5084 of 2010 seeking to release the vehicle. It was disposed of by Ext.P6 judgment. Therein this Court had directed the first respondent to consider the application for release of vehicle by way of interim custody within a period of seven days and in accordance with the same the Ext.P7 order had been passed. It was also directed that the W.P.(C)No.7424 of 2010 2 first respondent would 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 after considering the pleas raised by the petitioner. 3. A reading of the Ext.P7 shows that the rejection of the application cannot be said to be illegal. The vehicle had been taken to custody once and released after depositing Rs.25,000/-. Again it is involved in a similar offence now. 4. As Ext.P7 is not illegal, I find no reason to interfere with the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first respondent may be directed to pass final orders in respect to the seizure of the vehicle for the first offence committed on 28/11/2009 on which a hearing has already been conducted. Appropriate orders will be passed in terms of Ext.P6 judgment within the time limit provided therein. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE skj