IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2011 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 16323 of 2011(M) ----------------------- PETITIONER : --------------------- SARUN KUMAR C.K, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.KARUNAKARAN, CHENKARAKKANDI HOUSE, IRAPURAM VILLAGE, KEEZHILLAM PO, MANNUR DESOM, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. BY ADV. SRI. T.S. RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHALAKKUDY POLICE STATION – 680 307. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR – 680 001. 3. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, THRISSUR – 680 001. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 16323 of 2011(M) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF R.C. BOOK IN VEHICLE NO. KL-37-2512. EXT.P2 : COPY OF TAX INVOICE NO. 282 DATED 20.12.2010 ISSUED BY GLOBEL AGENCIES. EXT.P3 : COPY OF LICENCE NO. 1683 DT. 13.12.2010 ISSUED BY MUVATTUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY. EXT.P4 : COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION BEARING TIN NO.32151431103 DT. 13.12.2007 ISSUED BY THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, (VAT) MUVATTUPUZHA. EXT.P5 : COPY OF ORDER NO. F4-5781/2010 DT. 28.12.2010 ISSUED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. EXT.P6 : COPY OF ORDER IN CRL.M.P. NO. 466/2011 IN CRIME NO. 1676/2010 DT. 21.01.2011 IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, CHALAKUDY. EXT.P7 : COPY OF JUDGMENT IN CRL.M.C. NO. 431/2011 -O DATED 17.02.2011 OF THIS COURT. EXT.P8 : COPY OF PETITION FILED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR DT. NIL. EXT.P9 : COPY OF NOTICE NO.F4/5781/10 DT. 02.06.2011 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P10 : COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. CS9 4288/09(1) DT. 14.09.2009 OF THE DIST. COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.16323 OF 2011 -------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of June 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner, who is the registered owner of the goods vehicle bearing No.KL-37/2512, having purchased the same on 02-12-2010, is stated as aggrieved of the seizure of the same for alleged transportation of 'ration rice' intended for the 'public distribution system'. The case of the petitioner is that the transportation was effected on the basis of proper records, but the respondent concerned proceeded with further steps inspite of Exts.P3 and P4. 2. The petitioner, in the course of the proceedings approached the concerned Magistrate's Court, by filing Crl.M.P No.466/2011 for interim custody of the vehicle, who passed an order allowing the application, however imposing certain conditions. The petitioner felt aggrieved of the conditions imposed and challenged the order passed by the Magistrate by filing Crl.M.C No.174/2011, which culminated in Ext.P7 order, whereby the order passed by the learned Magistrate was set aside, holding that, once the confiscation proceedings were initiated, the jurisdiction of the Criminal Court stood ousted. Pursuant to further steps taken, Ext.P8 representation filed by the W.P.(C) No. 16323/2011 - 2 - petitioner before the 2nd respondent was considered by the said respondent, who passed an order dated 01-06-2011, followed by Ext.P9 order passed by the District Supply Officer, referring to the aforesaid order passed by the District Collector ie, 3rd respondent. The petitioner is now before this Court stating that, the petitioner might be permitted to have the goods vehicle released, on furnishing 'indemnity bond' as pursued by similarly situated authority, in respect of some other cause of action, as borne by Ext.P10. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who submits with reference to the materials on record that, the facts and circumstances with regard to Ext.P10 do not form part of the materials produced before this Court. The learned Government Pleader also submits that the order passed by the District Collector on 01-06-2011 as referred to in Ext.P9 is not under challenge. This being the position, this Court finds that there is absolutely no basis in the contentions raised by the petitioner, stating that, the vehicle is liable to be released to the petitioner on the strength of 'indemnity bond'. This Court justifies the order passed by the District Collector followed by Ext.P9 notice, whereby security is insisted. The only question is whether the petitioner would be directed to furnish 'bank guarantee' itself or W.P.(C) No. 16323/2011 - 3 - will it be enough if the petitioner furnishes security in some other form. 4. After hearing both the sides, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the petitioner to furnish security in the form of 'immovable property' to the satisfaction of the 2nd respondent, on which event the vehicle shall be released within 'two weeks' from the date of furnishing the security as aforesaid. vdv P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE