IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 19TH JULY 2011 / 28TH ASHADHA 1933 OP(C).No. 1695 of 2011(O) ------------------------- IA NO.123/2011 IN CMA.8/2011 of DISTRICT COURT, MANJERI .................... PETITIONER(S): -------------------- T.K. SHOUKATHALI, S/O. MUHAMMED HAJI, THONIKKADAVATH HOUSE, KOOTTILANGADI.P.O, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676 505. BYGOVT. PLEADER SHRI T.K.SAJEEV THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(C) NO.1695/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DISTRICT COURT, MANJERI IN IA NO.123/2011 IN CMA NO.8/2011 DATED 12.4.2011 //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.1695 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of July, 2011. JUDGMENT Learned Govt. Pleader takes notice for respondent. 2. A tipper lorry belonging to the petitioner was seized in connection with alleged violation of provisions of the Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 (Kerala). That vehicle was confiscated by the authorised officer against which a revision was filed before the District Collector who upheld the order. That order was challenged before the learned District Judge, Manjeri in C.M.A.No.8 of 2011. Along with the C.M.Appeal petitioner filed I.A.No.123 of 2011 for interim custody of the vehicle. Learned District Judge passed Ext.P1, order dated April 12, 2011 granting interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner subject to conditions which included that petitioner shall deposit 30% of value of the tipper (as got assessed by the District Collector, Malappuram) in cash and produce bank guarantee for the remainder (70%). Petitioner is aggrieved by the condition requiring him to produce bank guarantee for 70% of value of the vehicle. Learned counsel has invited my attention to the observations of the Full Bench of this Court in Shan v. State of Kerala (2010 (3) KLT 413) and requested that instead of bank OP(C) No.1695/2011 2 guarantee, petitioner may be permitted to produce security of immovable property for 70% of value of the vehicle. I have heard learned Government Pleader also. 3. In paragraph 12 of the decision referred supra it is directed that the interim custody of vehicle can be granted on condition that the owner of vehicle deposits 30% of value of the vehicle as determined by the appropriate authority under the Motor Vehicles Act in cash and he furnished bank guarantee or immovable property as security for the balance of value of the vehicle. 4. In view of the above direction it is sufficient that instead of bank guarantee petitioner produces security of immovable property for 70% of value of the vehicle as assessed. At the same time, petitioner has to produce a solvency certificate also before the learned District Judge for such property within a period of two months from the date on which the vehicle is released to the petitioner. Resultantly this Original Petition is allowed in the following lines: i. The condition imposed by learned District Judge, Manjeri as per Ext.P1, order dated April 12, 2011 on I.A.No.123 of 2011 in C.M.A.No.8 of 2011 requiring petitioner producing bank guarantee for 70% of value of the vehicle is set aside. Instead, it is directed that petitioner shall produce security of immovable property for the said amount. OP(C) No.1695/2011 3 ii. On compliance with the above condition and other conditions imposed by learned District Judge the vehicle shall be released to the petitioner subject to the further condition that within a period of two months from the date of release of the vehicle, petitioner shall produce a solvency certificate of the property offered as security before learned District Judge, Manjeri. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks