IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2009 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 36905 of 2009(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ALEEMA MUHAMMADALI, W/O.MUHAMMEDALI, KARIMBAKANDI HOUSE, THALAYAD P.O., UNNIKULAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA SRI.N.SHAMSUL HUDA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOORACHUNDU POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 36905 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the owner of a goods vehicle bearing registration No.KL8 Z 1074. The said vehicle was seized by the second respondent on 7.11.2009 on the allegation that it was used to transport river sand without a valid pass. He thereafter submitted a report to the District Collector, Kozhikode. The petitioner thereupon moved the District Collector by submitting an application for interim custody of his vehicle. When no orders were passed thereon, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.32480 of 2009 in this Court. By Ext.P5(a) judgment delivered on 13.11.2009 this Court directed the District Collector to grant interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner on such terms and conditions as he may deem fit to impose. The District Collector was also directed to pass final orders within two months from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. As directed by this Court, the petitioner produced a copy of Ext.P5(a) judgment before the District Collector. The District Collector thereafter passed Ext.P6 order dated 5.12.2009 granting interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner subject to the terms W.P.(C) No. 36905/09 2 and conditions stipulated therein. One of the conditions stipulated is that the petitioner should produce a demand draft for Rs.75,000/- drawn in favour of the District Collector. The said stipulation in Ext.P6 is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The petitioner’s vehicle is a 2003 model vehicle. He purchased it as per Ext.P1 agreement dated 30.10.2009 wherein the value of the vehicle is shown as Rs.2,10,000/-. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the direction issued by the District Collector that the petitioner should produce a demand draft for Rs.75,000/- is unreasonable. I therefore find no grounds to entertain this writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE vps