IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 1ST OCTOBER 2010 / 9TH ASWINA 1932 OP(C).No. 145 of 2010() ----------------------- AGAINST THE ORDERS IN IA 1792/2010 & 1960/2010 IN CMA.40/2010 of II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .................... PETITIONER ------------------------------ DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KDAPPANAKKUNNU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI B.JAYASURYA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SRI.D.RAJENDRAN NAIR, S/O.R.N.DAMODHARAN NAIR, RESIDING AT USHUS, TC.2/561, OOTUKUZHI, PAZHAVANGADI MURI, VANCHIYOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK, G P O 695001. 2. SRI.LAKSHMI.K.V., W/O.P.AJITH, RESIDING AT LAKSHMI NIVAS, BHAGAVATHI NADA PO, PALLICHAL VILLAGE 695501, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK. 3. SRI.SOMAN NADAR, RESIDING AT: PUNNAVILAKATHU VEEDU, 15/95, POONKULAM, VELLAYANI P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK. 4. SRI.B.S.HARSHAKUMAR, RESIDING AT TC 64/1822.1. RAMA LAKSHMI, THIRUVALLAM, TVPM TALUK. 5. SRI.T.S.SHINE KUMAR RESIDING AT: SRIBHAVAN, 14/765, N.J.ARAVILA, VENGANOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK. 6. SRI.VIDYASAGAR, RESIDING AT TC 68/770, VADAKKEKOLLAMVILAKATHU VEEDU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK. ADV. SHRI B.KRISHNAMANI FOR RESPONDENTS THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.145 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of October, 2010. JUDGMENT The State Government has come up with this petition challenging Exts.P8 and P9, orders passed by learned Additional District Judge-II, Thiruvananthapuram in C.M.A.No.40 of 2010. Case is that on receipt of a complaint about unauthorized conversion of paddy land in violation of provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (for short, “the Act”) by certain persons the Tahsildar, Thiruvananthapuram directed the Village Officer to conduct an enquiry into the matter and to stop further conversion of paddy land. Accordingly, the Village Office issued order on 12.04.2010 restraining one Lakshmi from such conversion. It is the case of the Government that in violation of the said order conversion continued and thereon the Sub Collector asked the Additional Tahsildar and Fort Police to apprehend persons involved in conversion. On the same day certain vehicles which are allegedly used for conversion were taken to custody. The District Collector conducted a preliminary enquiry under Section 20(1) of the Act and got value of the vehicles assessed. Owners of the vehicles were granted option to pay the sum equal to one and a half of value of vehicles as per order dated 21.05.2010. Vehicle owners challenged that order in C.M.A.No.40 of 2010 before learned Additional District Judge. They moved I.A.No.1792 of 2010 for interim custody of the vehicles alleging that the vehicles are remaining idle exposed to rain and OP(C) No.145/2010 2 sun and it is getting rusted and damaged. It is seen from Ext.P8, order dated 28.06.2010 that notice of the application was given to the learned Government Pleader well in advance , he appeared in court and requested the court to issue notice to the respondents directly (though under Order XXVII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”) the Government Pleader in any court shall be the agent of the Government for the purpose of receiving processes against the Government issued by such courts). Learned Additional District Judge accepted that request and issued notice to the respondents directly. Pursuant to the service of notice on the respondents, Government Pleader appeared in court on 24.06.2010 and sought time to file objection. The application was adjourned as requested. But there was a request for further time to file objection which learned Additional District Judge refused considering the urgency of the matter and to prevent damage of the vehicles involved. After hearing counsel for vehicle owners and the learned Government Pleader, learned Additional District Judge passed Ext.P8, order on 28.06.2010 ordering release of vehicles to petitioners in I.A.No.1792 of 2010 on furnishing security and executing bonds as stated in the order. Petitioners in I.A.No.1792 of 2010 approached the authority concerned for getting release of the vehicles but he insisted on production of solvency certificates. Again petitioners approached learned Additional District Judge by filing I.A.No.1960 of 2010 for a direction that the District Collector shall not insist for production of solvency certificate. That application was allowed after hearing both sides and the District OP(C) No.145/2010 3 Collector was directed by Ext.P9, order not to insist for production of solvency certificates and to release the vehicles immediately on executing bond as directed in the order dated 28.06.2010 on I.A.No.1792 of 2010. Exts.P8 and P9, orders are under challenge. It is contended by learned Government Pleader that considering the nature of offence committed, vehicles should not have been released to the owners. It is also contended that at any rate learned Additional District Judge should have directed production of the solvency certificate. I have heard learned counsel who appeared for the respondents, as well. 2. What is impugned is the interim order directing release of vehicles pending disposal of the C.M.Appeal. It is seen from Ext.P8, order that learned Additional District Judge has taken sufficient precaution while ordering release of the vehicles by directing the owners concerned to execute bond for appropriate amounts with two solvent sureties for the like sum each. That order was passed after giving sufficient opportunity to the Government Pleader to file objection which was not done. Learned Additional District Judge has observed in Ext.P8, order that the Government Pleader had no serious objection (at the time of hearing) in releasing the vehicles to the respective owners on sufficient security. The vehicles were lying exposed to rain and sun, getting damaged. After all, what is ordered is only interim custody. Release of the vehicles is subject to the final decision in the C.M.Appeal. Learned Additional District Judge OP(C) No.145/2010 4 has exercised the discretion in favour of release of vehicles pending decision in the C.M.Appeal. So far as Ext.P9, order is concerned, it was not for the District Collector to say that solvency certificates are to be produced. In Ext.P9, order learned Additional District Judge clarified that solvency certificate need not be insisted upon. 3. The arrangement made by the learned Additional District Judge is being interim in nature until disposal of the C.M.Appeal and considering the fact that if the vehicles are kept idle it will be rusted and damaged and neither of the parties is benefited by that, I do not find reason to interfere with the discretionary, interim orders passed by the learned Additional District Judge. Other contentious issues raised by petitioner can be urged before the learned Additional District Judge who shall dispose of the C.M.Appeal as expeditiously as possible. Resultantly this petition fails. It is dismissed. Learned Additional District Judge-II, Thiruvananthapuram is directed to expedite the disposal of C.M.Appeal at the earliest. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks