IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1931 WA.No. 1841 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.11003/2008 Dated 08/06/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ M/S.MAC CHARLES (INDIA) LIMITED, NO.28, SANKEY ROAD, BANGALORE - 560052, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT(OPERATIONS) & DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT, MR.VIJAY GOLLARHALLI. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA SRI.TERRY V.JAMES SRI.B.J.JOHN PRAKASH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE HOME SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE SUB REGISTRAR, MARADU, ERNAKULAM. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION SRI.V.G.GOVINDAN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.K.SURESH THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN, AG. C.J. & C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... Writ Appeal No.1841 of 2009 .................................................................... Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2010. JUDGMENT Raman, Ag. C.J. The appellant purchased 15 cents of land under Ext.P1. Ext.P2 is an encumbrance certificate in relation to the said property. Later, the appellant came to know that the property is under attachment by an order of the court as alleged. Writ Petition was filed seeking for a writ of certiorari or other order calling for the records relating to the Order of seizure and to quash the same and to pass other orders, interlocutory or otherwise, which are deemed fit and proper. The order of attachment is not exhibited. 2. In the counter affidavit, the stand taken by the second respondent was that since the property was suspected to have acquired by commission of offence, the same is liable to be confiscated and hence a notice was served on the Sub Registrar to protect the interest of the State. The learned Single Judge did not enter any finding on the W.A. 1841/2009 2 rival contentions raised. However, it was observed that as the seizure is effected under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the property is under attachment under court orders, it is for the petitioner to approach the court to seek appropriate relief. 3. We find that the contentions raised in the Writ Petition and also the contentions raised in the counter affidavit are totally misconceived. The learned Director General of Prosecution fairly submits that there is no order of attachment as such passed by the competent court. There is no question of seizure since the property involved is an immovable property. However, the Police Officer intimated the Sub Registrar not to effect any sale of property under the misconception that the property is under attachment by an order of the court. In view of the above position, relegating the petitioner to the court may not be proper since there is no order of attachment by the court to be vacated. Therefore, the only direction that is called for is to declare that the property covered by Ext.P1 is not subject to any attachment as on date. We declare so. However, this will not prejudice W.A. 1841/2009 3 the right of the respondents in taking appropriate legal steps to make an order of attachment in accordance with law. In that view of the matter, we vacate the judgment of the learned Single Judge and dispose of the appeal as above. P.R.RAMAN Acting Chief Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms