IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 5TH APRIL 2010 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 11538 of 2010(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SUBAIR,S/O.ALIKUTTY, PULPARAMBIL HOUSE,CHERUVAYOOR,EDAVANNAPARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,MALAPPURAM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR,ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY GOVT.PLEADER SHRI P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.11538 OF 2010 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 5th DAY OF APRIL, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved by condition Nos.1 and 2 imposed in Exhibit P2 order, whereby by way of interim custody, the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-10 Z/7904, has been released to the petitioner. The proceedings are issued under the provisions of Act 18 of 2001. The vehicle in question has been ordered to be released on deposit of Rs.50,000/- before the District Collector. The order is dated 12.11.2009. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that already the vehicle has been released. Mainly it is contended that condition Nos.1 and 2 cannot be supported as the petitioner has got every right to do the business in accordance with law and within the area of operation of the Perinthalmanna Revenue Division also. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. W.P.(C)No.11538/10 -2- 4. Condition No.1 is to the effect that the petitioner cannot even transport sand with a valid pass and condition No.2 is that the petitioner cannot use the vehicle for any purposes within the Perinthalmanna Revenue Division. Such conditions cannot be supported and this Court has already directed the District Collector to delete such conditions while passing orders granting interim custody. The petitioner is entitled to carry out his avocation in life in a legal manner and there cannot be any prohibition of the same. Apart from the same, the further condition that he cannot use the vehicle within the Perinthalmanna Revenue Division also cannot be supported. Therefore the Writ Petition is allowed. Conditions Nos.1 and 2 are deleted from Exhibit P2 order. No costs. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE dsn