IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2010 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 9500 of 2010(J) ------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- P.CHANDRAMOHAN,AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.PRABUDHA PANICKER, SUDARSHANA,ERRIKAVU (P.O),KARHIKAPPALLY, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.S.SHANAVAS KHAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, KARITHIAKAPPALLY,HARIPAD,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, HARIPPAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 9500 of 2010-J - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of March, 2010. JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Govt. Pleader. 2. The challenge is against Ext.P5 order, by which the application of the petitioner for interim custody of the vehicle was disposed of directing him to remit a sum of Rs.3,10,000/-. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said order cannot be supported, as it was passed without hearing the petitioner and without assessing the relevant aspects pleaded by the petitioner also. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the action itself is unsupportable for various reasons which he has already pointed out before the District Collector. It is the case of the petitioner that the seizure was effected in violation of Section 12 of the Act. The petitioner is also relying upon Ext.P6 judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.7744/2010. It is submitted that the facts are identical and therefore the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of the said judgment also. 4. Learned Govt. Pleader on instructions, submitted that Ext.P5 wpc9500 /2010 2 order was passed without hearing the petitioner. Therefore, Ext.P5 will stand set aside. There will be a direction to the District Collector to reconsider the matter and pass a fresh order. The contentions raised by the petitioner with regard to the illegality of seizure and the violation of the provisions of the Act will also be considered while passing a fresh order. The petitioner is free to rely upon Ext.P6 judgment before the District Collector. The District Collector will consider the application for interim custody of the vehicle afresh and appropriate orders shall be passed after hearing the petitioner, within a period of two weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/