IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 14TH AUGUST 2008 / 23RD SRAVANA 1930 WA.No.1692 of 2008 ---------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.18140/2008 Dated 16/07/2008 .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- AMMINI, W/O.MATHEW, ETTUPANKIL HOUSE, SEETHATHODU, VALUPARA, RANNY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. THE FOREST OFFICER, KOCHUKOICKAL BEAT, FOREST STATION, RANNY DIVISION, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, RANNY, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.RANJITH THAMPAN. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.A.No.1692 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 14th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T H.L.Dattu, C.J. The petitioner is the owner of a lorry bearing Registration No.KL-3E-9072.The said lorry was seized by the respondent on the ground that it was carrying forest produce. 2. The petitioner has approached the Divisional Forest Officer, Ranny, Pathanamthitta for interim custody of the vehicle. The request made in the application was rejected by the second respondent by Ext.P5 order. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner was before this Court in W.P.(C) No.18140 of 2008. 3. The learned Single Judge, relying on the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Krishna (AIR 2000 SCW 2911), has refused to grant the reliefs sought for by the petitioner. However, has directed the second respondent to complete the confiscation proceedings as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the orders passed by this Court. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders passed by the learned Single judge, the petitioner is before us in this appeal. W.A.No.1692/2008 -2- 5. Sri.Bechu Kurian Thomas, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner would submit that the learned Single Judge was not justified in rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner by relying on the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Krishna (AIR 2000 SCW 2911). According to the learned counsel, even in the aforesaid judgment, the Apex Court has observed that interim custody of the vehicle can be given to the owner of the vehicle after taking appropriate bank guarantee as security from the owner of the vehicle in exceptional cases. 6. We have gone through the mahazar that was prepared by the respondents at the time of seizure of the vehicle. In that, the only allegation against the petitioner is, that, he was carrying wood worth Rs.5,000/- and the revenue loss, if any, would be in a sum of Rs.2,000/-. 7. In our opinion, this is an exceptional case. We say so for the reason, even according to the respondents, the value of the wood that was being carried in the lorry is valued at only Rs.5000/- and secondly, petitioner has only one lorry and he says he has to eke out his living from using the lorry. Therefore, request of the petitioner requires to be granted and if it is granted, it would not cause any prejudice to the respondents. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the case pleaded by the parties to the lis, we dispose of the writ petition as under: W.A.No.1692/2008 -3- Order i). The Divisional Forest Officer, Ranny, Pathanamthitta, the second respondent is directed to release the vehicle bearing Registration No.KL-3E-9072, after accepting bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) from the petitioner. ii). The petitioner shall produce the vehicle before the authorities, whenever it is required. iii). The petitioner shall maintain the vehicle in the same condition as of now, till the matter is decided by the second respondent. iv). The second respondent is directed to complete the proceedings under the provisions of the Forest Act and the Rules framed thereunder, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within two months from today. 8. All the contentions of both the parties are left open. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (THOMAS P. JOSEPH) JUDGE MS