IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2008 / 5TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 24385 of 2008(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M.E. DHARMARAJAN, AGED 48, S/O CHANDRAN, RESIDNG AT MOOTHATT EANDHUMPALLI HOUSE, VETTOM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.VENUGOPALAN NAIR SRI.JAMES ABRAHAM (VILAYAKATTU) RESPONDENT: ------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOMS HOUSE COHIN. BY ADV. SRI.TOJAN J.VATHIKULAM, ADDL.CGSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.24385 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 27th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner's lorry was seized by the respondent on allegations of violation of the provisions of the Customs Act. The adjudication order resulted in imposition of penalty on the petitioner. The petitioner was also permitted to redeem the lorry by paying Rs.1 lakh. The petitioner challenged that order in appeal which is pending. Now the respondent is refusing to release the lorry on compliance with the adjudication order on the ground that the appeal is pending. 2. I have heard the learned Assistant Solicitor General also. 3. In a similar case, by Ext.P3 judgment, this Court had held that simply because the person against whom an adjudication order is passed challenged the adjudication order in appeal, he cannot be denied the benefit of release of the vehicle on compliance with the conditions of the adjudication order itself. I am in respectful agreement with that view. In the said w.p.c.24385/08 2 circumstances, this writ petition is allowed and the respondent is directed to release the lorry to the petitioner forthwith on his complying with the conditions in the adjudication order. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge