IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 5TH MARCH 2010 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 7108 of 2010(K) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- P.R.SABU, S/O.P.K.RAGHAVAN, AGED 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT PUTHENPURAKKAL CHELASHERY, POOTHADI AMSOM AND DESOM, VARADHOOR P.O., SULTHAN BATHERI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.ABRAHAM MATHEW (VETTOOR). RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANAD. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. P. NARAYANAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.7108/2010-K ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 5th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the owner of a Jeep bearing Registration No.KL-10-E-4930. It is the case of the petitioner that the vehicle was kept in an un-pliable condition in front of the petitioner's father's residence due to some mechanical problems. It is stated that inspite of the same, certain Revenue Officials entered the compound on 27/01/2010 at about 3 p.m. and took away the vehicle with the assistance of a motor mechanic. It is also pointed out that they have alleged transportation of river sand. The petitioner filed Ext.P1 representation before the first respondent seeking for release of the vehicle. Presently, he is aggrieved by Ext.P2 order which is passed without hearing the petitioner and with a direction to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader who appeared for the respondents. A reading of the order shows that the order has been passed under the Act 18 of 2001. But, it is pointed out that the direction to release the jeep by remitting fine of Rs.10,000/- etc. is not supported by any of the provisions of the Act. Practically, there is no adjudication of the contentions raised by the petitioner W.P.(C). No.7108/2010 -:2:- also with regard to the seizure conducted by the revenue officials. If the contentions of the petitioner are correct, then the vehicle cannot be said to be in a condition to be used for any purpose. Since the said aspect is in serious dispute, the said contention will be considered before passing the final order. It is not evident from Ext.P2 also whether any mahazar had been prepared by the officials who had seized the vehicle. 3. In that view of the matter, Ext.P2 is quashed. There will be a direction to the District Collector to pass a fresh order after hearing the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. The petitioner will produce a copy of the writ petition along with a copy of the Judgment before the first respondent for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms