IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 28976 of 2010(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, KUDAPPANAKKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE FORT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICER MANACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 4. THE STATE REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER JAYASOORYA B RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. K. ANILKUMAR, SUNITHA NIVAS KOLLAMTHARA, THIRUVALLAM,PACHALLOOR PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KERALA LOK AYUKTA, LEGISLATURE COMPLEX, VIKAS BHAVAN, PO THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR FOR R-1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/11/2010, ALONG WITH WPC NO.33859/10, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.28976/10 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR DT 17.5.2010. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT 10.8.2010. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 8.6.2010. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF the ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED STATEMENT FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 5.8.2010. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 15.9.2010. EXTS. OF R1 EXT.R1(a): TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.3154/08 DT 29.8.2008 OF THE S.R.9.CHALA. EXT.R1(b): TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT 1.10.2010 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN OP(C) NO.145/2010. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NOs. 28976 & 33859 OF 2010 ========================== Dated this the 12th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T The issue raised in these writ petitions are connected, and therefore, these cases were heard and are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Petitioner in WP(C) No.33859/10 is the authorised representative of the registered owner of a JCB Earth Mover bearing Regn.No.GA-03-C-0789. Under mahazar dated 17/5/2010, the JCB was seized on the allegation that it was used in violation of the provisions contained in Act 28 of 2008. Thereafter, report was made to the District Collector and by order dated 8/6/2010, the District Collector ordered confiscation of the vehicle and permitted the petitioner to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs.15,30,000. 3. Petitioner in WP(C) No.33859/10 challenged the aforesaid order before the Kerala Lok Ayukta. The Kerala Lok Ayukta passed order dated 5/8/2010 holding the seizure legally unsustainable and directed the District Collector to release the vehicle. Thereafter Lok Ayukta issued notice dated 15th WPC Nos. 28976 & 33859/10 :2 : September, 2010 directing the appearance of the District Collector on the allegation that its order dated 5.8.2010 was not complied with. It was at that stage that the District Collector and others filed WP(C) No.28976/10 challenging the aforesaid proceedings of the Lok Ayukta. During the pendency of that writ petition, the representative of the owner of the vehicle has filed WP(C) No.33859/10 seeking implementation of the orders of the Lok Ayukta. 4. The contention raised by the learned Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners in WP(C) No.28976/10 is mainly that the Lok Ayukta had no jurisdiction to have entertained the complaint of the petitioner, and that, if at all aggrieved, the remedy available to the owner of the vehicle was to have filed an appeal before the District Court as provided under Section 21 of Act 28 of 2008. 5. Having heard the counsel on both sides, I am inclined to agree with the learned Government Pleader and hold that the Lok Ayukta had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Necessarily therefore, the proceedings of the Lok Ayukta evidenced by order dated 5/8/2010 and notice dated 15/9/10, WPC Nos. 28976 & 33859/10 :3 : which are Exts.P8 and P9 in WP(C) No.28976/10 are liable to be set aside and I do so. Necessarily therefore, the relief sought in WP(C) No.33859/10 cannot be granted. 6. However, fact remains that the petitioner in WP(C) No.33859/10 was prosecuting his case before the Lok Ayukta and was successful in his attempt also. Now that the said proceedings have been held to be without jurisdiction, necessarily he should be given an opportunity to pursue his remedy available under Act 28 of 2008. 7. In that view of the mater, I direct that if the petitioner in WP(C) No.33859/10 files an appeal within 3 weeks before the District Court, Trivandrum as contemplated under Section 21 of Act 28 of 2008, the said Court will entertain the appeal irrespective of the delay that has occurred in the meanwhile and pass fresh orders on the appeal. 8. Needless to say that the contentions raised by both parties on the merits of the controversy are left open to be adjudicated by the Appellate Court. 9. It is also clarified that it will be open to the petitioner in WP(C) No.33859/10 to apply to the District Court seeking interim WPC Nos. 28976 & 33859/10 :4 : custody of the vehicle, in which event, the District Court will consider the application and pass orders thereon. Writ petitions are disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp