IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 34524 of 2008(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. PRASAD K, RESIDING AT KURUPAM THARAYIL HOUSE, KUTTAMPEROOR P.O., MUNNAR, KAVUMBAGAM VILLAGE. 2. SHEELA VARKEY, W/O. VARKEY,AGED 35 RES. AT THANIMOOTTIL HOUSE, VALAZHAVATTOM P.O., THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. K.P. ABRAHAM, RESIDING AT KUNNATHOLLIL HOUSE, KUNNAKURUDI, AIRAVARAM P.O., ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V. SRI.HAREESH.M SMT.G.R.LEKSHMI RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. 3. THE VILLLAGE OFFICER, KUTTIPUZHA VILLAGE OFFICE, THIRUVALLA. WP(C).No. 34524 of 2008 ::2 :: 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KAVUMBAGAM VILLAGE OFFICE, THIRUVALLA. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT FOR REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.N.SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C)No.34524 of 2008 ------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of November, 2008. JUDGMENT First petitioner owns a vehicle KL-4T 4869, 2nd petitioner owns KL-17A 227 and the 3rd petitioner owns KL-17A 8895 and KL-5K 9581. Those vehicles were seized as per Ext.P1 series. According to the petitioners, the vehicles were transporting red earth and there was no illegality in the transportation of the same. It is specifically contended that the transportation was not in contravention of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules or any other statutory provisions for that matter. The 2nd respondent, the Additional Tahsildar seized the vehicles as evidenced by Ext.P1 seizure mahazars. The petitioners contend that apart from the fact that the consignment was not unauthorised, the 2nd respondent is incompetent to effect any seizure. He is not authorised in that regard under Rule 58 of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, contends the learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. In my view, the question as to whether there was authority to seize the vehicle and enquire as to whether it is involved in any W.P.(C).NO.34524/08 :: 2 :: activity, except in an authorised manner, should be considered by the District Collector, in the first instance. 3. In the result, the petitioners may approach the District Collector seeking release of the vehicles pointing out that the vehicles were not involved in any unauthorised activity. This shall be done within two weeks from today. Thereupon, the District Collector shall himself issue orders in the matter within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 4. An authorised representative of the petitioners shall be heard before such orders are passed by the District Collector. It is made clear that I have not gone into the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioners. They are left open. Each of the petitioners shall produce a copy of this judgment, along with a copy of the respective writ petition before the District Collector. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge