IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 10TH APRIL 2008 / 21ST CHAITHRA 1930 WA.No. 656 of 2008 -------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.37886/2007 Dated 08/01/2008 .................... APPELLAN/ PETITIONER: ----------------------------------- K.J. SUNNY, S/O. JOSEPH, RESIDING AT KOZHANTHADATHIL HOUSE, THAVINGAL DESOM THALAPPUZHA DESOM, MANANTHAVADY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM MATHEW (VETTOOR) RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, FOREST DEPARTMENT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD. 3. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, BEGUR, MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,THALAPUZHA. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K. MEERA. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L. DATTU, CJ. & K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------------------- W. A. NO. 656 OF 2008 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th April, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L. DATTU, C.J: Ext.P3 order passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Mananthavady, Wayanad is called in question by the petitioner in the Writ Petition. In the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner, there were two prayers, firstly to quash Ext.P3 order passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Mananthavady, Wayanad, and secondly to direct respondents 2 & 3 to return the Bank Guarantee furnished by the petitioner. 2. The learned Single Judge has declined to entertain the Writ Petition on the ground that, if for any reason the petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P3 order passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, he can question the same by way of an Appeal before the appropriate Forum. 3. The learned Single Judge has refused the second prayer on the ground that the vehicle had been released to the petitioner on furnishing Bank Guarantee. 4. Having gone through the order of the learned Single Judge, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error whatsoever, which calls our interference. Therefore, the Writ Appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected. Ordered accordingly. H.L. DATTU, CHIEF JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH, kbk/Dk. JUDGE