IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY MONDAY, THE 14TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 25TH MAGHA 1932 WA.No. 212 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.883/2011 DATED 11/01/2011 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ AFSAL, S/O. ABDUL KAREEM, PERISSERIKODE HOUSE, CHERUPPA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695 001. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKKODE, PIN - 673 001. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 001. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MAVOOR POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673 661. MR.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ. .................................................................... W.A. No.212 of 2011 .................................................................... Dated this the 14th day of February, 2011. J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, J. Order under challenge in the Writ Petition is adjudication order issued by the District Collector directing release of the vehicle on payment of its value i.e. Rs.1.50 lakhs. The vehicle was taken possession by the respondents from the custody of the appellant, even though registered owner is different, is his case. Even though the appellant has not produced sale agreement, his case is that the vehicle is with him under a sale agreement, under which he has become the owner, and request for change of registration is going to be made. The appellant's claim though was not accepted by the learned Single Judge, we feel the same deserves to be considered because the registered owner has not chosen to get release of the vehicle, even though it is in the custody of the Government from 16/10/2009 onwards. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the validity of the statutory provisions has been challenged in a W.A.No.212/2011 2 batch cases, and this Court has reserved the cases for judgment. Of course if statutory provisions are declared invalid, then the order impugned in this case also will automatically go and the respondents will not be able to collect the value of the vehicle after confiscation and release of the vehicle under impugned orders. 2. In the circumstances, we dispose of the Writ Appeal with the following directions:- On deposit of Rs.1.5 lakhs under impugned orders and on production of original RC book of the vehicle with copy of sale agreement in his favour by the appellant, the vehicle will be released to the appellant after unloading the sand. If this Court in the batch cases hold that confiscation is invalid, then based on the judgment in the batch cases, the District Collector will refund the amount collected from the appellant, and in this regard, the District Collector will issue a fresh order in modification of the order impugned in this case based on the Division Bench judgment. If anything more could be collected under the Division Bench judgment, the same will be collected from the appellant. The appellant is granted six weeks time to deposit the amount and to W.A.No.212/2011 3 get release of the vehicle, failing which the District Collector will sell the vehicle in public auction and give excess, if any over Rs.1.50 lakhs, to the appellant, on the above terms i.e. on production of RC book and sale agreement. This Writ Appeal is allowed by modifying the judgment of the learned Single Judge as above. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JUDGE) jg