IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2011 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1933 WA.No. 1895 of 2011() ---------------------------- (JUDGMENT DATED 2.12.2011 IN WP(C).NO.32153/2011) APPELLANT(S): --------------------- 1. SUJITH K.S., AGED 26, S/O.SUDHAKARAN, KARUMATHIL HOUSE, VAKA, MATTOM P.O., THRISSUR. 2. GINEESH P.B., AGED 37, S/O.BHASKARAN, PANGIL HOUSE, PUTHUR DESOM, KAIPARAMBU VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.C.PRABIN BENNY RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR, COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE P.O., THRISSUR-680003. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR-680001. 3. AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHIBHAVAN ENGANDIYUR, ENGANDIYUR-680615. 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADANAPPALLY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR-680001. 5. THE SECRETARY, ENGANDIYUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ENGANDIYUR-680615, THRISSUR. BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MANJULA CHELLUR, Ag.C.J & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.A.No. 1895 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Manjula Chellur, Ag.C.J. Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. It is not in dispute, by virtue of Exhibit P7, the District Collector concerned made this order as follows: “On verification of the records it is seen that the land has not been cultivated for the past 30 years and that more enquiry is needed and the land owner has to be heard to establish the true state of affairs and to finalize the matter. Under these circumstances, considering the request of the vehicle owners, I here by order to release in the above said vehicles on interim custody on vehicle owners producing security in the form of property or bank guarantee for the Value of the vehicles or on the security of two Government employees. The Vehicle owners are also directed to execute a bond with the following conditions. 1) The vehicle shall not be transferred without prior permission of the District Collector. 2) The registered owner of the vehicle shall not cause any damage to the vehicle so as to reduce its value and utility. 3) The vehicle shall not be used for illegal filling of land and for illegal transportation of any minor mineral. WA.1895/11 2 4) The vehicle is liable to be seized with immediate effect if it is found violating conditions of interim custody. 5) The owner of the vehicle is liable to renew the bank guarantee on its expiry till final orders are passed in the case There is also a direction to the concerned Regional Transport Officer for making necessary entries to this effect in the RC book of the above said vehicles.” 3. The appellants, being the owners of the vehicles, which came to be seized on the allegation of carrying mud for illegal filling of land which comes under the category of NANJA, lying in a particular survey number was the cause for the order at Exhibit P7. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants herein approached the learned Single Judge with several contentions including a ground that data bank though prepared not notified. We would make it clear that at this stage, whether the data bank was prepared or not or prepared but not notified is not a relevant criterion, though it may be a relevant consideration before the District Collector. While disposing of the enquiry into the main allegations, certain conditions were put by the District Collector. Subject to such conditions, the vehicles of the appellants have to be released. WA.1895/11 3 4. The grievance before the learned Single Judge was that the value fixed by the Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector pertaining to the vehicles was exorbitant and unrealistic. Having regard to the other alternative terms or conditions of security, which could be offered by the owners of the vehicle, the learned Single Judge disposed of the Writ Petition saying, it is open to them not to avail any of the benefits thereof and then move the first respondent for finalisation of the proceedings so far as the seized vehicles are concerned, if they are not in a position to comply with the directions under Exhibit P7. We do not find any good ground to differ from the opinion of the learned Single Judge. The Writ Appeal is dismissed accordingly. Sd/- MANJULA CHELLUR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE vgs /true copy/ PS TO JUDGE