IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 21ST MARCH 2011 / 30TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 8819 of 2011(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- KHADER KUNJU, AGED 58, S/O.MUHAMMED, VALAPPIL THACHAYIL HOUSE, CHELAKKULAM, PATTIMATTOM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, VENGOOR P.O.-683554. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM SRI.N.RAJESH SMT.D.N.NISHANI RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU-682023. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNNATHUNADU POLICE STATION. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. P. NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C)No. 8819 OF 2011 ......................................................................... Dated this the 21st March, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved of the seizure of the JCB bearing No.KL-40B/1108 by the third respondent, allegedly in connection with the involvement in an offence under the Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is absolutely no rhyme or reason for having proceeded against the vehicle and the petitioner is totally unconnected with the alleged incident nor is the vehicle in any way connected with the same and it is only to harass the petitioner that the third respondent has chosen to implead the petitioner or the vehicle leading to the proceedings . It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner has approached the second respondent by filing Ext.P7. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who submits with reference to the materials on record that the seizure W.P.(C)No. 8819 OF 2011 2 is made by the competent authorities and the proceedings pending before the second respondent will be finalised in accordance with law. 3. In the above circumstance, this Court does not propose to go into the merits of the case, but for directing the second respondent to consider Ext.P7 and pass appropriate orders, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, with regard to the interim custody of the vehicle and the final orders shall be passed in accordance with law, giving liberty to the petitioner to adduce evidence in support of the claim, which shall be finalised within four weeks thereafter. . The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk