IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2011 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 8425 of 2011(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- DILEEP.D., S/O.DIVAKARAN, PANAMBALIL PADEETTATHIL, MUTTAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 001. 3. THE SUB COLLECTOR (REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER) CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-689 121. 4. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, MAVELIKKARA-690 502. 5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KURATHIYAD POLICE STATION. (VIA) MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690 502. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. P. NARAYANAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No 8425 OF 2011 ......................................................................... Dated this the 17th March , 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging Ext.P14 order passed by the second respondent pursuant to the direction given by this Court in Ext.P13 verdict passed in W.P(C)No.36477 of 2010. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by virtue of the impugned order, the petitioner has been mulcted with the liability to deposit 50% of the value of the vehicle , to have interim custody of the vehicle, that too subject to certain conditions, which according to the petitioner is not correct or sustainable under any circumstances. There is also a further grievance for the petitioner that he was not heard before passing Ext.P14 order. 3. The learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the matter was considered by the second respondent, in accordance with law, more so in view of the direction given by this Court in Ext. P13. The course pursued by the second respondent is sought to be justified on the factual position as well. W.P.(C) No 8425 OF 2011 2 4. Considering the fact that the matter is pending for quite long, this Court finds it fit and proper to direct the second respondent to finalise the proceedings, so as to take the cause of action to a logical conclusion and to have finality at the earliest. In the said circumstance, the second respondent is directed to finalise the proceedings forming the subject matter of Ext. P14, in accordance with law, of course, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the second respondent for further steps. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk