IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2011 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 28619 of 2011(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.PRAMOD, ETTIKATTIL HOUSE, MAHADEVIKADU P.O., KARTHIKAPALLY, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, (SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE), CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KARIYILAKULANGARA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. GP SRI. MUHAMMED SHAH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 28619 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P-1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT AND THE MAHAZAR PREPARED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P-2 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, P.W.D. ROAD SECTION, KAYAMKULAM. EXT.P-3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT DATED 28-1-2011 (True copy) P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).28619/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the owner of a Goods carriage vehicle bearing No.KL-29A-8811. On the allegation that the vehicle was used in violation of the provisions contained under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (in short 'the Act'), the vehicle was seized by the third respondent and according to the petitioner, it has been produced before the second respondent. It is thereupon this writ petition has been filed, seeking to quash the seizure and for directing release of the vehicle. 2. A reading of Ext.P1 mahazar shows that the alleged violation is that of the provisions under the Act. If that be so, the third respondent is required to produce the vehicle before the jurisdictional Magistrate and it is for the Magistrate to take further action in the matter. 3. Therefore, I direct that on the production of a copy of this judgment, the third respondent shall forthwith produce the vehicle before the jurisdictional Magistrate, if the same is not already W.P.(C).28619/11 2 produced. It is clarified that it will be open to the petitioner to make an application to the Court concerned seeking interim custody of the vehicle. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs