IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 20TH DECEMBER 2010 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 35849 of 2010(E) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SIBY AUGUSTINE, S/O.AUGUSTINE, AGED 38 YEARS, VELIYATHU HOUSE, POLINJAPALAMKARA, ADIMLAI, MANAMKANDOM VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.JIJI. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE CHIEF FOREST CONSERVATOR, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 014. 2. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, MUNNAR DIVISION, DEVIKULAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN – 685 613. 3. THE FOREST CONSERVATOR, KOTTAYAM CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM, PIN – 686 001. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BENNY VARGHESE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/12/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 35849 of 2010 E ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 20th day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the registered owner of a lorry bearing No.KL-7S-5063 against which O.R.No.81/2004 was registered by the Forest Range Office, Devikulam. Pursuant to the directions of this Court in W.P.(C) No.36963/2004 filed by the petitioner, on furnishing a Bank Guarantee for `1,88,000/- and on execution of a bond, the vehicle was released to the petitioner. 2. According to the petitioner, C.C.No.299/2007 registered in relation to the very same incident, resulted in Ext.P1 order discharging the accused. Thereupon, he sought release of the Bank Guarantee. Bank Guarantee was not released. It is therefore the writ petition is filed. 3. According to the learned Government Pleader, Section 61A proceedings initiated against the petitioner are still not over and, therefore, at this stage, the petitioner cannot W.P.(C) No.35849/10 : 2 : seek release of the Bank Guarantee. Further, it is also alleged that against the terms of the bond and Bank Guarantee, the vehicle was transferred by the petitioner. 4. If there is violation of the bond conditions, it may be open to the respondent to take action as is permissible in law, about which this Court may not pronounce in this proceedings. However, since it is clear from the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader that the 61A proceedings are still not over, at this stage, this Court will not be justified in directing that the Bank Guarantee should be released to the petitioner. 5. Irrespective of the above, fact remains that the issue on which the OR case was registered against the petitioner was in 2004 and having regard to the lapse of more than six years, it is necessary that the 61A proceedings should be expedited and concluded within a time frame. Therefore, I direct the second respondent to conclude the 61A proceedings in respect of the vehicles referred to above, with W.P.(C) No.35849/10 : 3 : notice to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate, within eight weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. 6. It is clarified that in case the final orders to be passed are in favour of the petitioner, at this stage, it will be open to the petitioner to seek appropriate orders for the Bank Guarantee furnished by him get released. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. To Judge