IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 28TH AUGUST 2009 / 6TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 25046 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SUSHILKUMAR, S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR, AGED 41 YEARS, MAMPATTA HOUSE, SHORNOOR (P.O) SHORNOOR DESOM, SHORNOOR VILLAGE, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT (OWNER OF A LORRY BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL-13-E-729). 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 GP SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).25046/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 28th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the registered owner of a vehicle bearing registration No.KL-13-E-729. The vehicle was apparently used for transporting sand on 23.6.2009 and it is contended that the transportation was accompanied by a valid pass. 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 includes a direction to remit an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, 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 conditions have been challenged in the writ petition. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 3. The direction that the vehicle shall not be used for W.P.(C).25046/09 2 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 warrant any interference. But, I am of the view that the direction to remit Rs.1,00,000/- seems to be onerous. Therefore, if the RC owner remits half the amount now directed to be deposited, then such deposit will be treated as due compliance with the directions. 4. None of the other conditions are modified. Those conditions will, therefore, be complied with by the petitioner. 5. Once the conditions, subject to the modifications effected in this judgment, are complied with, then the vehicle shall be released to the petitioner. Subject to the above, the writ petition is disposed of. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs