IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2008 / 18TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 37886 of 2007(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- K.J.SUNNY, S/O.JOSEPH, KOZHAMTHADATHIL HOUSE, THALAPUZHA, MANAMTHAVADY, WAYANAD. BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM MATHEW (VETTOOR) RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENT PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOREST DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD. 3. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER BEGUR, MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THALAPUZHA. BY SPL.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 37886 OF 2007 I ===================== Dated this the 8th day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T The prayer in this writ petition is to quash Ext.P3 and for a direction to respondents to return the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner. 2. In so far as the challenge against Ext.P3 order under Section 61(A) of the Forest Act is concerned, the statute itself provide for an appeal to the District Court and therefore without expressing anything on the merits of Ext.P3, I relegate the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy. 3. The other main grievance in this writ petition appears to be that while the confiscation proceedings were pending with the 2nd respondent, petitioner got the vehicle involved in the offence viz, a jeep released on bank guarantee. According to him, the vehicle was stolen sometime in 2001 and a case has been WPC 37886/07 :2 : registered and investigation is pending . Now with the issuance of Ext.P3, the petitioner has become liable to surrender the vehicle, or else the bank guarantee will be invoked. It is apparently in this background that this writ petition has been filed. 4. In so far as the liability of the petitioner for producing the jeep entrusted to him in custody is concerned, he has undertaken to produce it as and when called for. With the issuance of Ext.P3, the petitioner has become liable to surrender the jeep and it was his responsibility to have kept the vehicle in proper care during the period of his custody. If the vehicle has been stolen from his possession, petitioner is certain to expose himself to the risk for forfeiting the bank guarantee. This court will not be justified in interfering with the orders to be passed in such circumstances. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. Rp