IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2011 / 11TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 23932 of 2011(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.SASI, KOTTAYIL HOUSE, OLAKETTIYAMBALAM, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMOOTTILL 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. SR GP SMT.M.J.RAJASHREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 23932 of 2011 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).20232/2011 EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 10.8.11 EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR PREPARED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT (True copy) P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................... W.P.(C).23932/2011 ....................... Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT Proceedings under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, was initiated against the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-31A/7747 of which, petitioner is the registered owner. Seeking interim custody of the vehicle, petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P. (C).20232/2011. Pursuant to the directions contained in Ext.P1 judgment, the first respondent passed Ext.P2 order, directing the petitioner to furnish security in the manner provided therein. It is at that stage the writ petition is filed seeking to release the vehicle on furnishing sufficient security in respect of the directions in Ext.P2. 2. By Ext.P2, petitioner was directed to furnish security for 30% of the value and bond for remaining 70%. In my view, the manner in which security is to be furnished by an owner of the vehicle is a matter which is essentially to be decided by the first respondent and unless extreme basis of arbitrariness or perversity is made out, this Court will not W.P.(C).23932/11 2 substitute its views in the matter. I am not satisfied that the impugned order is vitiated for any reason. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs