IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2009 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 10644 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JOMY VARGHESE, S/O.LATE JOSEPH VARGHESE KALAPPURACKAL HOUSE, PERUMTHURUTHY POST KAVUMBHAGAM VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK BY ADV. SRI.P.KURUVILLA JACOB RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVALLA 2. THE S.I. OF POLICE, THIRUVALLA 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE PATHANAMTHITTA BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.A.ASIF THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC.10644/09 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF ORDER DT 10.3.09 OF R3. P2 COPY OF COMPLAINT DT 19.3.09 TO R1. P3 COPY OF LETTER DT 25.3.09 OF R1. P4 COPY OF COMPLAINT DT 21.3.09 TO R4. P5 COPY OF COMPLAINT DT 23.3.09 TO R3. // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No.10644 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 6th day of April, 2009 JUDGMENT Grievance in this writ petition is that though by Exhibit P3 order, the RDO has directed release of the lorry, first respondent has not so far released the vehicle to the petitioner. 2. Facts of the case are that the petitioner claims to be the registered owner of Mahindra Tipper Lorry bearing registration No.KL3/N-5082. It is stated that on 10/2/2007, without any reason whatsoever, first respondent seized the vehicle. According to the petitioner, finally the 3rd respondent issued Exhibit P1 ordering release of the vehicle and the petitioner complied with the conditions imposed therein. It is stated that vehicle was not released and therefore Exhibit P3 was issued by the first respondent, directing the second respondent to release the lorry, but however, the second respondent has not given keys so far. It is in these circumstances, this writ petition has been filed. 3. Learned Government Pleader on instruction confirms that the vehicle is available in neighboring property of the police W.P.(C) No.10644 /2009 2 station; that the lorry was never entrusted to the Police and that they do not have the keys also with them. Although, this contention is sought to be contradicted by counsel for the petitioner, on the material now available, it is not possible to conclude that key of the vehicle is available with the police. In such a situation, the only option available to the petitioner is to get duplicate keys, which he says, key is with the financier, and get the vehicle into his possession. Other option is to get another set of duplicate key made. These are the options available to the petitioner. In order to enable the petitioner to pursue these options, it is directed that the second respondent shall issue a certificate to the petitioner to the effect that key of the lorry mentioned above is not available with him. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the second respondent for compliance, who shall immediately thereupon issue certificate as directed above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm