IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 25TH JULY 2011 / 3RD SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 20203 of 2011(A) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- KUNJUMON, PADINJAREMULAKKIL, AMBIKA MARKET.P.O, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.PRAMOD RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA - 688 001. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THANNEERMUKKAM NORTH VILLAGE, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688 001. 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MUHAMMA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688 001. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. HANIL KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.20203/2011 A APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. P2: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD. 02/12/2010 ISSUED BY THE VECHOOR LIME SHELL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.2407. P3: COPY OF THE TAX INVOICE DTD. 18/12/2010 ISSUED THE VECHOOR LIME SHELL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.2407. P4: COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.935/2010 OF MUHAMMA POLICE STATION. P5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 24/05/2009 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. P6: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 31/05/2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P7: COPY OF THE REPORT DTD. 18/06/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P8: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 08/06/2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 20203 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Ext.P8. Ext.P8 is an order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, giving interim custody of a country boat to the petitioner imposing certain conditions. It is these conditions which are under challenge in this writ petition. 2. A reading of the conditions incorporated in Ext.P8 order show that these conditions are consistent with the terms of the directions contained in the judgment of the Full Bench of this court reported in Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala [2010(3)KHC 333]. Consequently I do not find anything illegal in Ext.P8. 3. However, counsel for the petitioner submits that towards the security as ordered in Ext.P8, respondents are insisting for Bank guarantee. Although no such condition W.P.(C) No. 20203 OF 2011 :2 : has been specified in Ext.P8, still having regard to the directions contained in the Full Bench judgment, I clarify that it is open to the petitioner to furnish security by way of immovable property as well and that if such security furnished is satisfactory, that will be accepted by the respondent. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ul/- [true copy] P.S. to Judge