IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2011 / 5TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 2196 of 2011(Y) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- RADHAMANY. M., AGED 61 YEARS D/O.MEENAKSHIAMMA, KARINCHIRA THEKKETHIL, EVOOR P.O., CHEPPAD, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.T.P.PRADEEP RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE OCHIRA- 690 526. 2. THE R.D.O. , KOLLAM- 691 001 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM- 691 001. 4. MINTU ANANDAN, KAVUNKALAYIL, PUTHUPPALLY NORTH, ALAPPUZHA- 690 527. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.P.N. SANTHOSH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P (C) No.2196 of 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 25th January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P7 order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, directing release of the lorry bearing Reg.No.KL-29/B-7201 on the petitioner remitting value of the same. Main contention raised is that the order was passed without affording the petitioner an effective opportunity of hearing. It is stated that on 17.12.2010 when the petitioner appeared before the 2nd respondent to enquire about the proceedings, Ext.P8 notice was served and a farce of hearing was conducted on that day itself. It is contended it is on that basis Ext.P7 order was passed. 2. From the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader, it is clear that there is force in what the petitioner submits. If so, necessarily, the impugned order deserves interference on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, I set aside Ext.P7 and direct that the 2nd respondent will issue notice and hear the petitioner and thereafter shall pass fresh W.P (C) No. 2196 of 2011 2 orders in the matter. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible on the production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition. 3. In the meantime it will also be open to the petitioner to seek interim custody of the vehicle. It is ordered that an application in this behalf is made, the 2nd respondent will consider the application and pass orders thereon, duly applying the principles laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala [2010 (3)KHC 333] Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the 2nd respondent, for compliance. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE ma /True copy/ P.A to Judge W.P (C) No. 2196 of 2011 3