IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 6TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 25167 of 2011(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER : ------------ E.N.GOPAKUMAR SF, 37/B MANIN ROAD, PONNI MAHALAKSHMI FARM DEEPLAPATTI, UDUMALPET, TAMIL NADU. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT: ----------- THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. JAMES MATHEW KADAVAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 25167 of 2011(U) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT OF BELONGS TO THE PETITIONER VALID TILL 12.5.2018. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AUTHORISATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED THE TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT,TAMIL NADU. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DELIVERY NOTE DATED 3.9.2011 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF OTHE CHECK REPORT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER'S VEHICLE. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 25167 of 2011 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 28th day of September, 2011. J U D G M E N T On certain allegations contained in Ext.P4 check report, the original permit of the petitioner's vehicle bearing Reg. No. TN 41/U-2016 has been detained by the respondents. The petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any illegality as stated in Ext.P4 check report. Therefore, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “i. Call for records leading to Ext.P4 and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari; ii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent to release the original permit of petitioner's vehicle bearing No. TN 41/U-2016 without insisting the payment of tax for one quarter and also compound fee and further restrain the respondent in taking further coercive proceeding against the petitioner's vehicle; iii. Declare that the coercive proceedings initiated by the respondent is not legal and justifiable and the stock transfer done in the instant case by the petitioner from one storage yard to another situated in the same state is permissible.” 2. Insofar as Ext.P4 is only a check report directing the petitioner to show cause why further proceedings should not be taken against the petitioner in respect of the allegations in Ext.P4, I am not inclined to interfere with Ext.P4. 3. I had directed the learned Government Pleader to ascertain what would be the probable amount the petitioner has to pay, if Ext.P4 proposal is confirmed. The learned W.P(C) No. 25167 of 2011 -: 2 :- Government Pleader submits that if Ext.P4 is confirmed, the petitioner will have to pay an amount of Rs. 14,680/- . In the above circumstances, I direct that if the petitioner deposits an amount of Rs. 14,680/- as security for any amount, which may be found due on finalization of Ext.P4, the original records of the vehicle shall be returned to the petitioner after retaining a photo copy of the same. I also record that as per the instructions received by the learned Government Pleader, Rs.14,680/- consists of Rs. 5,000/- as compounding fee and Rs. 9,680/- as tax. Needless to say, such deposit would be subject to the result of the final orders to be passed pursuant to Ext.P4 and on passing final orders , if whole or any part of the said amount is liable to be refunded to the petitioner, the same shall be refunded to the petitioner. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/