IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2011 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 8948 of 2011(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.AANDAVAN, S/O.VEERAPPAN, AGED 50 YEARS RESIDING AT 315 C, KARUPPAKAT VEETTIL, B.L RAV, CHINNAKKANAL P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.M.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI, COLLECTORATE, KUYILIMALA, IDUKKI. 3. THE SUB COLLECTOR, DEVIKULAM, PIN- 685613, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, SANTHAMPARA POLICE STATION, SANTHAMPARA P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. SR GP SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J ....................... W.P.(C).8948/2011 ....................... Dated this the 31st day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT The vehicle bearing No.KL-10-M-498 was allegedly seized from the custody of the petitioner on 26.8.2010 in connection with the offence under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act. Petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C). 27664/2010, particularly seeking for interim custody of the vehicle and the said writ petition was disposed of as per Ext.P1 judgment dated 7.9.2010, whereby the competent authority was directed to consider the matter and pass appropriate orders in the light of the decision rendered by the Full Bench reported in Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala (2010 (3) HC 333). 2. The case of the petitioner is that nothing transpired thereafter and the petitioner has been served with Ext.P2, whereby a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- has been demanded to be satisfied so as to have the vehicle released, which made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition. W.P.(C).8948/11 2 3. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the narration of the events as given by the petitioner is not correct. Pursuant to Ext.P1 judgment notice of hearing was issued by the concerned respondent on 10.11.2010, followed by another notice on 29.11.2010, despite which there was no appearance. It was in the said circumstances, that the matter was finalised by passing the final order on 9.12.2010 fixing the value of the vehicle as Rs.1,20,000/- based on the report of the concerned RTO. It is pointed out that the final order is not under challenge and hence no interference is warranted. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, taking note of the fact and circumstances, does not intend to challenge the final order or the other proceedings impugned in this writ petition and that the prayer pressed before this Court is only to permit the petitioner to clear the liability by way of reasonable instalments. 5. After hearing both sides, this Court finds it fit and W.P.(C).8948/11 3 proper to permit the petitioner to discharge the liability in a phased manner; particularly when the challenge against the impugned proceedings has been given up. Accordingly; the liability covered by Et.P2 is permitted to be cleared by 'three' equal monthly instalments; the first of which shall be cleared in April 2011; simultaneously furnishing security for the balance amount, either in the form of bank guarantee or by way of immovable property; also giving an undertaking that the vehicle shall be released to the petitioner forthwith. Petitioner's vehicle will not be alienated, nor any act would be done so as to diminish the value of the same. Subject to this, the vehicle shall be released forthwith. If any default is committed in satisfying the liability, the respondents will be at liberty to proceed with further steps in accordance with law. Writ petition is disposed of. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, Judge mrcs