IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2011 / 28TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 27609 of 2011(A) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- RAJEEVAN, S/O.VASU, GUYYA VILLAGE, V.H.POST, SIDDAPURA, KUDAKU DISTRICT, KARNATAKA STATE. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD - 671 121. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KASARGOD - 671 121. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUMBALA POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT - 671 121. 4. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 5. SRI.RANJITH, CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUMBALA POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT - 671 121. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED SHAH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 27609/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE AND PERMIT OF THE PETITIONER'S VEHICLE. P2: COPY OF THE PASS DATED 24/09/2011 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONERS VEHICLE. P3: COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT AND THE SEIZURE MAHAZAR DATED 24/09/2011. P4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. P5: COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 11/11/2010 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 27609 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the registered owner of a lorry bearing Reg.No.KA 12/9287. The 5th respondent seized the vehicle on 24.9.2011 on the allegation that the vehicle was used for illegal transportation of river sand and such proceedings are pending before the 2nd respondent. It is in such situation that this writ petition has been filed contending that the proceedings are illegal as the transportation was on the strength of necessary papers. 2. Since the proceedings are pending before the 2nd respondent, it is for the petitioner to urge his contentions before the said authority and get himself exonerated. It is also open to the petitioner to seek interim custody by making application before the 2nd respondent in which event the 2nd respondent will consider the application without delay and pass orders thereon, applying the principles laid down W.P.(C) No. 27609 OF 2011 :2 : in the Full Bench decision of this Court in Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala [2010(3)KHC 333]. 3. Petitioner has a case that the 3rd respondent seized the vehicle in order to help certain persons and the seizure was with malafides. So he preferred Ext.P4 complaint before the 4th respondent. Therefore, having regard to the nature of the allegations, I direct that the 4th respondent will examine the grievance raised by him in Ext.P4 and pass necessary orders. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ul/- [true copy] P.S. to Judge