IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 26TH JULY 2011 / 4TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 20232 of 2011(D) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ C. SASI, KOTTAYIL HOUSE, OLAKETTIYAMBALAM, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN, SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD, SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM), SRI.MATHEW SUNNY, SRI.ANOOP.V.NAIR. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688 001. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHENGANNUR POLICE STATION, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-689 121. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.M.J. RAJASREE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/07/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 20232 of 2011(D) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN HARIDAS AND THE PETITIONER DATED 18/02/2011. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE VEHICLE. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE LETTER WRITTEN BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA TO ALL THE DISTRICT COLLECTORS DATED 11/11/2010. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE REPORT PREPARED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND SUBMITTED TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 21/02/2011. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 16/07/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).20232/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 26th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT 1.Petitioner claims to be registered owner of a Swaraj Mazda vehicle bearing registration No.KL-31A/7747, which was seized by the second respondent on the allegation that it was used in violation of the provisions contained in the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, (Act 28 of 2008). Vehicle is now under detention. According to the petitioner, since the vehicle is kept exposing it to sun and rain, he made Ext.P5 application to the first respondent seeking interim custody of the vehicle. It is stated that despite the application, the vehicle is still not released to him. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition is filed. 2.If proceedings under Act 28 of 2008 are pending, it is for the first respondent to finalize the same. This the first respondent shall do as expeditiously as possible. In the meanwhile, and pending finalization of the said proceedings, if Ext.P5 application made by the petitioner for interim W.P.(C).20232/11 2 custody of the vehicle has already been received, I direct that orders thereon will be passed within ten days of production of a copy of this judgment. 3.It is made clear that in case his order is to give custody of the vehicle to the petitioner, it will be open to the first respondent to impose such conditions as he deems fit and proper. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs