IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2008 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1930 W.P(C).No. 10714 of 2008(A) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- SHAJI THOMAS, S/O.THOMAS, PADINHARAKARA HOUSE, NERIYAMANGALAM.P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. (OWNER OF VEHICLE JCB BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL-1 7-A/0575). BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.P.VENUGOPAL (1086/92) RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, NILAMBUR TALUK, NILAMBUR. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. I.V. PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 10714 OF 2008 - A = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 7th day of April, 2008. J U D G M E N T A J.C.B. belonging to the petitioner, was hired by a customer for making trenches. While under hire, the JCB was seized by Ext. P1 mahazar in which the allegation is that the JCB was used for diverting the flow of river water. Petitioner submitted Ext. P2 representation for the release of the JCB and that was directed to be considered in Ext. P3 judgment. 2. While the matters stood thus, Ext. P4 notice dated 29.2.2008 to show cause against confiscation has been issued to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to appear on 7.3.2008. According to the petitioner, Ext. P4 was obviously a pre-dated document and was received by the petitioner long after 7.3.2008. In Ext. P4, the allegation is that the JCB in question was used in violation of the provisions contained in the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act. It is challenging Ext. P4 and seeking release of the JCB this writ petition has been filed. W.P.(C) No.10714 OF 2008 - 2 - 3. It is true as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that in Ext. P1, except the allegation that the JCB was used for diverting the flow of river water there is no other allegation. It is also true that in Ext.P4 the allegations are totally different and now raised in Ext. P4. 4. Irrespective of the contentions that are raised, what I feel is that it is for the respondents to continue further action on Ext. P4 with notice to the petitioner and after hearing him. I say so for the reason that Ext. P4, admittedly has been received by the petitioner long after 7.3.2008, the date to which the matter was posted in Ext. P4. Therefore, directing that further action on Ext. P4 shall be completed with notice, and that on the petitioner executing a bond with two solvent sureties for the value of the JCB, the JCB will be released to the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of. There will also be a condition that the petitioner will undertake not to alienate or encumber the JCB and produce the same as and when called for. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-