IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 5TH MARCH 2009 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 7057 of 2009(B) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ ALI.T., S/O MOIDHU, THENAMOOCHIKKAL HOUSE, VEERAMANGALAM P.O, THRIKKEEDIRI PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH SMT.R.LEELA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM DT. 3. YOUSEFF S/O.KUNJAPPU, KAKKATTIL HOUSE, ALIPARAMBU, PERINTHALMANNA. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 7057 OF 2009 (B) ==================== Dated this the 5th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims that he was the owner of a Mini Lorry bearing Regn.No.KL-9/R.8031. According to the petitioner, pursuant to Ext.P1 agreement dated 5th of December, 2005, he sold the vehicle to a person called Sri.Youseff, who is the 3rd respondent in this writ petition. According to the petitioner, the lorry was seized from the 3rd respondent for the unauthorised transportation of river sand and Ext.P2 proceedings have been issued showing him as the registered owner and ordering payment of the amounts specified therein. Presently though the petitioner does not stake any claim of ownership over the vehicle in question, his apprehension is that ultimately if the value now ordered to be paid is not remitted by the 3rd respondent and in case the value realised on disposal of the vehicle is inadequate, recovery proceedings might be initiated against him. 2. This being the grievance, I feel the writ petition is premature. The order has been passed only on 9/1/2009 and if the 3rd respondent is actually the agreement owner, it is upto him WPC 7057/09 :2 : to pay the money and get the vehicle released. If both the parties do not comply with the order, it is certainly open to the respondents to sell the vehicle in question and it is not known what value will be fetched in that eventuality. Therefore, only in the event that value realised is less, can the apprehension now voiced by the petitioner come true. Therefore at this stage, it is premature for the petitioner to approach this Court on the basis of the aforesaid apprehension. Hence, leaving it open to the petitioner to challenge the recovery proceedings, if any, initiated at that stage, the writ petition is disposed of. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp