IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2009 / 26TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 23410 of 2009(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MURALEEDHARAN, S/O. NARAYANAN, AGED 42 YEARS, VALAPPIL HOUSE GANESHGIRI P.O., MUNDAYA DESOM, SHORNOOR VILLAGE, OTTAPPALAM, TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADAKKANCHERRY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.23410 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of August, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner is the registered owner of a vehicle bearing registration No.KL-5/f-5229, which is stated to be a 1997 model mini lorry. The vehicle was apparently transporting sand on 23.6.2009. It seems that the transportation was accompanied by a pass issued by the Tahsildar. The vehicle was intercepted by the 2nd respondent. Thereafter, the files were forwarded to the District Collector, who has passed an order directing the release of the vehicle on interim custody pending final orders, subject to certain conditions. The conditions imposed included a direction to remit an amount of Rs.1,20,000/-, 25% of the value fixed by the Joint Regional Transport Officer, as security with two solvent sureties for equal amount. Other conditions W.P.(C).No.23410/09 :: 2 :: including an interdiction against user of the vehicle within the limits of the District have also been imposed. The said order has been challenged in the writ petition. 3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 4. The direction that the vehicle shall not be used for transportation of sand till the case is disposed of does not warrant any interference. It is in conformity with the directions in Subramanian Vs. State of Kerala [2009 (1) KLT 77). So also, the direction that the vehicle shall not be used within the limits of the District does not seem warrant any interference. But, I am of the view that the direction to remit 25% of the value fixed by the Joint Regional Transport Officer seems to be onerous. Therefore, if the RC owner remits half the amount of 25% of the value W.P.(C).No.23410/09 :: 3 :: of the vehicle, then such deposit will be treated as due compliance with the directions. So also, the direction to produce the vehicle every week before the Sub Inspector of Police, Wadakkancherry is also unnecessary and unwarranted, since there is already a restraint on sale and transfer of the vehicle, pending final orders by the District Collector. The said condition No.4 as contained in Ext.P3 shall stand deleted. 5. None of the other conditions are modified. Those conditions will, therefore, be complied with by the petitioner. 6. Once the conditions, subject to the modifications effected in this judgment, are complied with, then the vehicle shall be released, which of course, shall be subject to the compliance of all other conditions imposed by the District Collector in the impugned order. W.P.(C).No.23410/09 :: 4 :: Subject to the above, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge