IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2008 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 10113 of 2008(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- T.M.SUKUMARAN, KALAYATHOLIL HOUSE, ANGAMOOZHY, CHITTAR, SEETHATHODE. BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CONSEVATOR OF FORESTS, SOUTHERN CIRCLE, VANASREE, CHINNAKKADA, KOLLAM. 3. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, RANNY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY SPL.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 10113 OF 2008 D ==================== Dated this the 4th day of April, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner submits that his mini lorry bearing Regn.No.KRB 5559 was involved in a proceedings initiated by the 3rd respondent. Subsequently, the order under Section 61(A) of the Forest Act was passed. During the pendency of the proceedings following the orders passed by this court in WP(C) No.16217/94, petitioner furnished a bank guarantee for the value of the vehicle and got its temporary custody. Subsequently, the order under Section 61(A) itself was set aside by the appellate court in CMA 32 of 2004. This order has become final also. 2. In view of the above, it is rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is entitled to get the amount of bank guarantee which was invoked following the order under Section 61(A). The only justification that is now offered by the learned Government Pleader appeared on behalf of the respondents is that though they have sought legal opinion from the District Legal Officer, Pathanamthitta, they are awaiting for the same. 3. In view of the admitted fact that by Ext.P6, order of WPC 10113/08 :2 : confiscation has been set aside, the petitioner is entitled to be refunded the Bank guarantee amount. Therefore, irrespective of whether the legal opinion is received or not, he is entitled to get his money back. In view of the above, I dispose of this writ petition directing that the amount at any rate shall be released to the petitioner before 30th of May, 2008. However, I clarify that this judgment has been rendered on the assumption that Ext.P6 has become final. If it is otherwise so, suitable decision can be taken by the respondents. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp