IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 28TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 31117 of 2011(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ ABDUL LATHEEF.M.P., S/O.MUHAMMED HAJI, MUNDAKKAPARAMBATH HOUSE, CHERUPPA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR SMT.SMITHA BABU RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER/ SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673 301. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MAVOOR POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 661. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED SHAH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.31117/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 14.11.2011 AS NO.M-3964/11. EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF THE CHALAN, SHOWING THE REMITTANCE OF RS.10,000/- DATED 11.11.2011. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 31117 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 28th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T Ext.P1 is an order passed by the 1st respondent levying a penalty of `10,000 on the petitioner finding that his vehicle bearing Regn.No.KL-11 AE 2691 was used in violation of the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules. Petitioner says that immediately the amount was paid as per Ext.P2 and that despite such payment, the vehicle is not released by the 2nd respondent. 2. However, learned Government Pleader submits that aggrieved by the order passed by the 1st respondent, 2nd respondent has already filed revision before the District Collector, Malappuram reiterating his contention that contrary to the findings in Ext.P1, what was transported was river sand in violation of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. It is also submitted that along with the appeal, samples have been produced and that the appeal was filed on 18/11/11. It is submitted that it was therefore that the WPC No. 31117/11 :2 : vehicle is not released. 3. However, fact remains that as on date, petitioner has an order in his favour, which is Ext.P1. If that be so, he is entitled to enjoy the fruits thereof. Therefore, subject to the outcome of the appeal that is now pending, he is entitled to have his vehicle released. 4. Therefore, I direct that, on the production of a copy of this judgment, 2nd respondent will release the vehicle. However, petitioner shall not alienate or encumber the vehicle until the revision filed by the 2nd respondent is disposed of, and that, an undertaking to that effect shall be filed by him before the 2nd respondent. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp