IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2010 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 36708 of 2010(K) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. GOPALAKRISHNAN, CHERUVALIL HOUSE, PUTHUPALLY.P.O., KAYAMKULAM. 2. SUGATHAN, KOKATIL HOUSE, VALLIKKUNNAM VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA. BY ADVS. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR SRI.PRASAD CHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688001. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CHENGANNUR-689121. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VALLIKKUNNAM-690501. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P. NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 36708 of 2010 K ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 9th day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the registered owner of a tipper lorry and a JCB bearing registration Nos.KL-29/3393 and KL- 29/3393 respectively. Earlier, the vehicles were seized by the third respondent on the allegation that the same were used in violation of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967. On that occasion, petitioner approached this Court and pursuant to the directions in judgment in W.P(C) No.35155/2010, the vehicles are temporarily released to the petitioner by Exts.P6 and P7 orders. However, in these orders, two conditions have been imposed saying that till final orders are passed, the vehicles shall not be used for gravel transportation and mining. It is also stated that in case the conditions are violated, the vehicles will not be released on interim custody. It is aggrieved by the aforesaid two conditions, this writ petition is filed. W.P.(C) No.36708/10 : 2 : 2. According to the petitioner, in view of the aforesaid provisions of Exts.P6 and P7 orders, the petitioner will not be in a position to employ his vehicles even for legitimate activities and, therefore, he contends that the conditions are illegal. 3. In my view, these conditions are to be understood as providing that the vehicles shall not be used for any illegal activity and these conditions cannot be understood as restricting the petitioner's right to employ these vehicles for legitimate purposes. Therefore, I do not think that there is any illegality in the clauses as contended by the petitioner. Clarifying the position as above, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. To Judge