IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 20TH MARCH 2009 / 29TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 9017 of 2009(V) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ DR.N.DAYANANDAN, NIRMALA BHAVAN, MANGARAM, KOZHENCHERRY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) SRI.MATHEW SUNNY RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FORESTS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 9017 OF 2009 (V) ===================== Dated this the 20th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner states that 20 items of teak plants and 179 pieces were seized from his premises on 22/7/92. Thereafter, proceedings were initiated under Section 61(A) of the Forest Act and orders of confiscation was also passed. That was challenged by the petitioner in CMA No.69/94 before the District Court, Pathanamthitta resulting in Ext.P1 judgment setting aside the order of confiscation and allowing the appeal. Though the respondents filed CRP No.71/02 against Ext.P1 judgment, that was dismissed by this Court as per Ext.P2 order. Thereafter RP No.456/2007 was filed and the same was also dismissed as per Ext.P3 order. Inspite of all this, the timber seized from the petitioner were not released and therefore Ext.P4 notice was issued calling upon the respondents to release the timber and thus comply with the judgments. Not only that the timber is not released, but even Ext.P4 is not responded. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition has been filed seeking an order requiring the respondents to release the timber. WPC 9017/09 :2 : 2. If as stated by the petitioner, the appeal filed by the petitioner has been allowed and the order of confiscation has been set aside, there is no reason for the delay on the part of the respondents in considering the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P4 for release of the timber. 3. In view of the pendency of Ext.P4, I direct that the 2nd respondent shall consider and pass orders thereon in the light of Exts.P1 to P3 judgments. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp