IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 17TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 3723 of 2008(R) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ RASHEEDA ASHRAF, W/O.ASHRAF, AGED 41 YEARS, AZHIKKAKATHU HOUSE, NEAR MADAVANA MASJID, NETTOOR, PANANGAD P.O., KUMBALAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANANGAD POLICE STATION. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE GOVERNMENT PLEADER, HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 3. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOCHI CITY. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 3723 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated: February 6, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner submits that she is a pardhanashin lady and is the registered owner of a Honda Activa Scooter bearing registration No.KL-39-A-350. According to her, the vehicle was seized by the 1st respondent on 14.12.2007 and that although she had produced all original documents relating to the vehicle through her power-of- attorney-holder, the 1st respondent is insisting on the personal appearance of the petitioner. It is on this allegation the writ petition has been filed praying for directing the 1st respondent to release the vehicle to the power-of-attorney-holder of the petitioner after verifying the records and without insisting on her personal appearance. 2. I heard the learned Government Pleader in this matter. 3. According to the Government Pleader on 14.12.2007 when the vehicle was checked, it was found that the rider viz. one Firoz Khan was not in possession of any of the documents relating to the WP(C) 3723/08 Page numbers vehicle. It is also submitted that the rider of the vehicle was an accused in Crime No.139/2004 registered under sec.379 of the IPC. As he was not in possession of the records, the vehicle was kept in the police station and till date nobody has approached them with the original records, submits the learned Government Pleader. If, at the time when the respondent had intercepted the vehicle, the rider did not have any records, the 1st respondent cannot be faulted for having detained the vehicle. 4. It is also his case that nobody had approached him with the documents, and therefore the vehicle was not released. The respondent also denied the allegation that they refused to release the vehicle to the authorised agent of the respondent. The facts being so, it is only proper that if the petitioner makes available the records of the vehicle through her power-of-attorney-holder, the same will be verified by the respondent and the vehicle will be released on execution of proper records for the same. 5. Therefore I direct that if the petitioner's power-of- attorney-holder approach the 1st respondent, after verifying the documents and obtaining proper receipts, the 1st respondent shall WP(C) 3723/08 Page numbers release the vehicle to the power-of-attorney-holder. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-