IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2011 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 29256 of 2011(F) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SREEKALA.K., KATOOR HOUSE, MANADUKKAM.P.O., PANATHADY, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD - 671 121. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KASARAGOD - 671 121. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUMBALA - 671 321. 4. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, (ADMINISTRATION), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. R1 TO R4 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. M.J. RAJASHREE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/11/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).NO.29256/2011-E: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER'S VEHICLE. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.600 OF 2011 OF KUMBALA POLICE. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE PASS DTD. 12/10/2011. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DTD. 11/11/2010 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).29256/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner submits that she is the registered owner of a vehicle bearing registration No.KL-60/B 9283. According to the Petitioner, on the strength of Ext.P3 permit, river sand was transported and that, while so the third respondent detained the vehicle and produced the same before the second respondent on the allegation of illegitimate transportation of river sand. It is with this grievance the writ petition has been filed. 2. Now that the statutory authority is seized of the proceedings, it is upto the petitioner to appear before the said authority, urge his contentions and get herself exonerated. It is true that the contention of the petitioner is that in view of Ext.P3 permit, seizure itself is illegal. In my view, it is a matter for the second respondent to consider and I have no reason to think that the second respondent will not advert to it. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition leaving it open to the petitioner to appear and contest the matter before the second W.P.(C).29256/11 2 respondent and it is also clarified that in the meanwhile, if the petitioner is desirous of getting the vehicle on interim custody basis, it is open to her to make such an application before the second respondent who shall consider and pass orders thereon, in the light of the principles laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala [2010(3)KHC 333], without any delay. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs