IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2010 / 5TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23465 of 2010(G) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. REJI STEPHEN,S/O.P.M.STEPHEN, PALAMOOTTIL, KUTTUR, THIRUVALLA. 2. S.MOHANAN, S/O.SREEDHARAN PILLAI, LEKSHMI NIVAS, MAVELIKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,ALAPPUZHA PIN-688 001. 2. JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, CHENGANNUR-689 121. 3. TAHSILDAR, CHENGANNUR-689 121. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 23465 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioners' vehicles have been seized on allegations of violation of the provisions of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules. A criminal case has been registered in respect of the same. Petitioners had earlier approached this court by filing W.P.(C) No.14428/2010, in which by Ext.P4 judgment this court directed release of the vehicles to the petitioners on remitting Rs.25,000/- each and furnishing an undertaking not to alienate or encumber the vehicles. Consequently the vehicles have been released to the petitioners. Petitioners are now aggrieved by Ext.P5 direction, whereby the petitioners have been directed to produce the vehicles for valuation before the 2nd respondent. Petitioners' contention is that there is no necessity for valuing the vehicles and therefore the petitioners are not bound to produce the vehicles for valuation. W.P.(C)No. 23465 of 2010 -2- 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. The learned Government Pleader points out that for violation of the provisions of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, if found guilty, the petitioners' vehicles themselves are liable to be confiscated or the petitioners can be directed to pay fine in lieu of confiscation, for which valuation is necessary. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. As is clear from Ext.P4 judgment, one of the conditions under which the petitioners were given interim custody of the vehicles is that they shall produce the vehicles as and when called for. I am satisfied that Ext.P5 direction is in accordance with that condition. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader since the question of confiscation of the vehicles has also to be decided, the valuation of the vehicles is in order. That only has been directed by Ext.P5. Therefore there is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE shg/