IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2011 / 23RD POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1242 of 2011(E) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. SHIJU P.THOMAS, PERUMPADAMPPIL, VAZHAPALLY WEST P.O., CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. SUSAN VARGHESE, MUTHALAKERIL, KUZHIVATTAM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. SANTHOSH, PUTHENPARAMBIL CHIRA, CHEMBUMPURAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 4. ANIL KUMAR.M.N., MUTHODATHU, CHAMBAKARA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 5. SIBICHEN JOHN, KANTRAMATTOM HOUSE, ERAVUCHIRA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 6. SREENATH, PADINJAREPANDARATHIL, OORUKIRI P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.JOMY GEORGE SRI.SEBASTIAN THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOTTAYAM-686 001. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA-688 001. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA-688 001. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P (C) No.1242 of 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 13th January, 2011 J U D G M E N T According to the petitioners, they are the owners of tipper lorries which were entrusted to the work of transporting ordinary soil for the construction of various roads under the Jenakeyaasuthranam Scheme of Alappuzha Municipality and for the construction of Nedumudy Kuppapuram road. It is stated that while so, the 2nd respondent seized the vehicles on the allegation that they were transporting gravel for filling up of the paddy land and on that basis proceedings were initiated and vehicles are in the custody of the 3rd respondent. Petitioner states that the 3rd respondent thereafter passed final orders in the matter leving a fine of Rs.5000/- to each. It is stated that by Ext.P7 application filed by the petitioners, they applied for copy of the orders and that the 3rd respondent has not issued even copy of the proceedings. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition has been filed challenging the aforesaid proceedings. W.P (C) No. 1242 of 2011 2 2. From the submission therefore thus made by the petitioners, it is evident that proceedings initiated against the petitioners are under the provisions of the Act 28 of 2008. If it is so initiated , it is for the 3rd respondent to finalise the same. Now that the petitioners submit that the 3rd respondent has passed final orders in the matter and since the grievance primarily is that copy of the proceedings have not been issued, I direct that on production of a copy of this judgment, if orders have already been passed as asserted by the petitioners, the 3rd respondent shall issue copies of the proceedings to the respective petitioners. It is clarified that once copies are so issued and if petitioners are aggrieved by the proceedings, it will be open to the petitioners to seek appellate remedy as provided under under Section 21 of Act 21 of 2008. With this liberty, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE ma /True copy/ P.A to Judge W.P (C) No. 1242 of 2011 3