IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 25TH OCTOBER 2011 / 3RD KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 28412 of 2011(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. JOMY, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.JOSE, MUNJELI HOUSE, PALAYAMPARAMBU P.O., KALLUR VADAKKUMMURI VILLAGE, CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR. 2. VARGHESE, S/O.POULOSE, CHUNDERAPARAMBIL HOUSE, THUMBUR, VELUKKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.P.R.REENA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, THRISSUR, PIN-680001. SR.GOVT.PLEADER SMT.M.J.RAJASHREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.28412/11 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE RDO THRISSUR DATED 17.8.94 WITH ENDORSEMENT WITH 3.12.09. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 18.1.2010 OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR ORDER NO.B3 8406/10. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE BANK GUARANTEE SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.12.2010 OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY of THE DECISION REPORTED IN 1982 KHC 125. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE SESSIONS COURT THRISSUR IN CRL.A.NO.70/2011. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 28412 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 25th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are owners of tipper lorries. According to the petitioners, their vehicles were hired by the owner of the property in whose favour Ext.P1 order was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer exercising his powers under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. According to the counsel, after the petitioners completed the work, Ext.P1 order was revoked, and based on the same, proceedings under Act 28 of 2008 were initiated resulting in Ext.P5 order passed by the 1st respondent confiscating the lorries. They were also given the right to redeem the vehicle on payment of `1,00,000/- each. 2. Aggrieved by Ext.P5 order, they filed appeal under Section 21 of Act 28 of 2008 before the District Court. The District Court disposed of the appeal as per Ext.P7 order. Taking note of the judgment of this Court in WP(C) No.10248/10, District Court set aside Ext.P5 order and remitted the matter before the District Collector for fresh consideration. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that when the work was WPC No. 28412/11 :2 : done by the petitioners, Ext.P1 order was in force and they having executed the work on the bonafide belief that the work entrusted to them was a lawful activity, cannot be saddled with any liability for confiscation of the vehicle or levy of any penalty. In support of this plea, learned senior counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in Vamadevan Pillai v. State of Kerala and Others (1982 KHC 125), a copy of which is Ext.P6. 3. In my view, now that the matter is pending before the District Collector pursuant to Ext.P7 order passed by the District Court, these are contentions which the petitioners will have to urge before the District Collector and it is for that authority to deal with the issue. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition directing that it will be open to the petitioners to appear before the 1st respondent to urge their contentions including that of Ext.P6, in which event, the entire matter will be considered by the 1st respondent and orders in the matter shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 6 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp