IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 28TH JUNE 2010 / 7TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 18804 of 2010(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MOIDU ALIAS MOIDEEN, S/O.ASSANAR, 10/386, MUTHUMALA KAVASSERY, VAVULLIYAPURAM P.O., THONIPPADAM, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 543. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST AND WILD LIFE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN - 695 001. 2. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, NENMARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. PIN - 678 508. GOVERNMENT PLEADER BENNY VARGHESE FOR R1& 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 18804 of 2010 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 28th day of June, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner's vehicle has been seized on allegation of commission of a forest offence. The petitioner approached the 2nd respondent for interim custody of the vehicle. Ext. P5 order has been passed, wherein the petitioner has been directed to pay Rs. 1,90,000/- as the value of the vehicle as a condition for granting interim custody. In Ext. P5, it is also stated that if the petitioner does not take custody of the vehicle paying the said amount, the vehicle would be auctioned pending further proceedings. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext. P5 order. According to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent cannot pass an order like Ext. P5 without first passing an order of confiscation. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: “a) Call for the records of the case leading up to Ext. P5 and to quash the same by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction. b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to complete confiscation proceedings if he intends within a time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court and after affording an opportunity for the petitioner to adduce evidence. c) Issue an order to release the vehicle pending disposal of this writ petition.” 2. The learned Government Pleader submits that the procedure now adopted is on the basis of a Division Bench decision of this Court in MACA No. 1458/2006, based on which the Government has issued a circular dated 5-1-2009. The learned Government Pleader points out that the Division Bench has in that decision issued general directions as to how seized vehicles are to be dealt with pending confiscation proceedings. He submits that the Division Bench has specifically W.P.C. No. 18804/2010 -: 2 :- directed that since confiscation proceedings take time, the vehicle liable to be confiscated should be released only on deposit of its value so that its value could be recovered treating confiscation as notional or otherwise the offender will surrender the vehicle in scrap condition and take back security furnished by him. He further points out that in that judgment, it has also been specifically directed that if the party does not take custody of the vehicle after paying the value of the vehicle after a reasonable time, namely, two weeks, the vehicle should be sold in public auction and its value only should be the subject matter of the confiscation proceedings. The learned Government Pleader therefore submits that Ext. P5 order is strictly in accordance with the said judgment of this Court and the circular was issued by the the Government on the basis of the said judgment. 3. I have heard both sides. 4. In view of the said Division Bench decision, which is binding on me, I do not think that I can direct release of the vehicle without deposit of the value of the vehicle. However, in view of the fact that the vehicle was seized as early as on 24-4-2010, it is only appropriate that the confiscation proceedings be concluded within a reasonable time. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent to complete the confiscation proceedings against the vehicle in question as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In the mean while, the vehicle shall not be sold. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.