IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2009 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 30991 of 2009(T) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- LEELAMMA, AGED 50, W/O.JACOB, VELLARA HOUSE, MANALITHARA PO, THIRUSSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR), SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN, MR.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH). RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP BY THE SECRETARY, TO GOVT. FOREST DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, MACHAD RANGE, ENGAKAD PO, THRISSUR. 3. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER THRISSUR. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. I.V. PRAMOD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/11/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.30991 OF 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ The petitioner is the owner of a vehicle. Her husband is the driver of that vehicle. That vehicle was intercepted by the forest officials in the reserved forest. It was found to carry certain forest goods. The petitioner does not show that she or her husband had moved either the forest authority or the competent criminal court for release of the vehicle, at least on third party custody. The mere pendency of even proceedings for confiscation does not generate the need to release the vehicle or consider release of the vehicle, unless such release is sought for by any person, who desires his vehicle to be released. However, it is quite shocking that the petitioner has stated in the Writ Petition that the value of goods shown to have been recovered is assessed at Rs.3,000/- (see paragraph 3 of the Writ Petition). This is a matter that the competent authority in the Government will have to consider. Undervaluation of materials that are seized W.P.(C) No.30991/2009 2 may ultimately have a bearing even on sentencing, in cases where the matter results in conviction. 2. I do not find any ground to issue any order in exercise of writ jurisdiction for release of the vehicle. The petitioner, if so advised, shall move the appropriate authority for release of the vehicle, in accordance with law. The Writ Petition is dismissed in limine without prejudice to that course. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge ps