IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2009 / 6TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 21127 of 2009(I) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SABU T.P.,S/O.PADMANABHAN,AGED 46 YEARS, BUSINESS,THEKKEVALAPPIL,PRAPPURAM P.O., KIZHAKKUMBHAGOM VILLAGE,ALUVA TALUK,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT(OWNER OF LORRY REGN.NO.KL-7-AY-1526). BY ADV. MR.P.M.ZIRAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KORATTY POLICE STATION. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. 3. THE SECRETARY, KANJOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/07/2009 ALONG WITH WPC.NO.21128 OF 2009, WPC.NO. 21163 OF 2009 AND WPC.NO.21168 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V.GIRI, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.21127, 21128, 21163 & 21168 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT Similar contentions have been raised in these writ petitions. Therefore, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. I will refer to the facts in W.P. (C)No.21128/09 in the first instance. The directions issued herein will govern the other writ petitions. W.P.(C)No.21128/09 2. The petitioner was a registered owner of a vehicle bearing registration No.KL-17/C- 6307, which is stated to be a 2002 model mini lorry. The vehicle was apparently transporting sand on 8.6.2009 from Moozhi-1 Kadavu under the Koovappady Grama Panchayat. It seems that the transportation was accompanied by a pass W.P.(C).No.21127/09 & Con.Cases. :: 2 :: issued by the Tahsildar. The vehicle was intercepted by the 1st respondent. Thereafter, the files were forwarded to the District Collector, who has passed an order directing the release of the vehicles on interim custody pending final orders, subject to certain conditions. The conditions imposed included a direction to remit an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, 25% of the value fixed by the Joint Regional Transport Officer, as security with two solvent sureties for equal amount. Other conditions including an interdiction against user of the vehicle within the limits of the District have also been imposed. These orders have been challenged in these writ petitions. 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 W.P.(C).No.21127/09 & Con.Cases. :: 3 :: 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, in all these cases, if the RC owner remits half the amount of 25% of the value of the vehicle, then such deposit will be treated as due compliance with the directions. 5. None of the other conditions are modified. Those conditions will, therefore, be complied with by the respective petitioners. 6. Once the conditions, subject to the modifications effected in this judgment, are W.P.(C).No.21127/09 & Con.Cases. :: 4 :: complied with, then the vehicles shall be released, which of course, shall be subject to the compliance of all other conditions imposed by the District Collector in the impugned orders. Subject to the above, the writ petitions are disposed of. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge