IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2010 / 8TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20179 of 2010(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ 1. PRAVEEN.N.U ,AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.UNNIKRISHANAN, NEDUNGOTTIL HOUSE KARAKURISSI PO, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 2. SIBY M.U, S/O.ULAHANNAN MUKKIDIKATTIL HOUSE, VAZHEMPURAM, KARAKURISSI, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP BY CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT OF KERALA, GOVT SECRETARAIT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KARIMPUZHA II VILLAGE, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, OTTAPALAM TALUK OFFICE PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER OTTAPALAM TALUK OFFICE PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD 6. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE MANNARKKAD,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. ADV. MR. P.N. SANTHOSH – GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.20179 OF 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of JUNE, 2010 J U D G M E N T The vehicle belonging to the petitioners has been seized on allegation of using the same for illegal transportation of rubber trees from Government land. According to the petitioners, the trees were cut from the property of one Muraleedharan who has sold the trees to the petitioners . The petitioners have also filed a suit before the Munsiff's Court, Ottappalam, contending that the seizure is illegal. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “i) declare that the seizure of the 1st petitioner's vehicle is illegal and is not liable to be detained anymore; ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to unconditionally return the vehicle having Reg.No.KL- 51-519, Tata 407 Mini Lorry, to the 1st petitioner forthwith or in the alternative release the vehicle to the 1st petitioner on interim custody subject to the proceedings, if any, as requested in Exts.P1 and P5, without any further delay”. In order to give relief to the petitioners, I have to necessarily W.P.(c)No.20179/10 2 come to a finding that the trees have not been cut from the government land. For that, evidence is necessary, which cannot ordinarily be taken in a writ petition. However, having seized the vehicle, appropriate officer has to take a final decision in the matter expeditiously. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the fourth respondent to take a final decision pursuant to the seizure of the petitioners' vehicle as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. Needless to say, the petitioners would be entitled to adduce evidence in support of their contentions. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(c)No.20179/10 3 W.P.(c)No.20179/10 4