IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2010 / 14TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 17377 of 2010(V) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- JAISON MATHEW,AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.M.P.MATHEW,MALEKKUDIYIL, KARUKADAM.P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.K.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OONNUKAL POLICE STATION, 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 17377 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the owner of a vehicle which has been seized on allegations of user for illegal activities prohibited by the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. Petitioner earlier approached this court and by Ext.P4 judgment this court directed the District Collector to pass orders regarding interim custody of the vehicle. While so, by Ext.P5 order dated 22.04.2010, the District Collector passed final orders, directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- apparently in lieu of confiscation of the vehicle. That order is under challenge before me. In view of Ext.P8 report of the Tahsilar, there was no reason for the District Collector to even suspect that, the vehicle was involved in illegal activities is the contention of the petitioner. W.P.(C)No. 17377 of 2010 -2- 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. Ext.P5 is an order passed under Section 19 of the Act, against which the petitioner has an effective alternate remedy by way of appeal before the District Court having jurisdiction over the area. Therefore I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with Ext.P5 at this stage. I am satisfied that against Ext.P5, the petitioners' remedy lies in filing an appeal under Section 20 of the Act and accordingly without prejudice to that right, this writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE shg/