IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2009 / 1ST SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 20118 of 2009(H) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- ALEX P.CYRIAC, PROPRIETOR, PERUMALIL GRANITE CONSTRUCTIONS, ARUNOOTTIMANGALAM, MULAKULAM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ADOOR POLICE STATION, ADOOR. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA. 4. THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, ADOOR. 5. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (DOUBLING), SOUTHERN RAILWAY, KAYAMKULAM. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. M.R. SREELATHA, R5 BY MR.B.SUNIL NATH,SC, RAILWAYS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/07/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.20118/2009-H: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE PERMIT ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DTD. 11/03/2009. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE F.I.R. IN CRIME NO. 758/2009 OF ADOOR POLICE STATION. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER AWARDING THE WORK. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.20118 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 23rd July,2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner, who is a contractor, was awarded the work in connection with the doubling of track between Kaymkulam and Mavelikara. Petitioner was granted a permit for removal and transportation of sand. The vehicles deployed by the petitioner were seized on 12.7.2009 and this has been challenged by the petitioner in the writ petition. Pursuant to an interim order passed by this Court, the vehicles along with sezure mahazar were produced before the learned jurisdictional Magistrate on a motion made by the petitioner the vehicles were relased to the petitioner. Petitiner challenges the initiation of proceedings and registration of F.IR. According to him, Ext.P1 will show that the petitioner was removing ordinary earth from the property mentioned in Ext.P1 as per the permission granted in that behalf. 2. In so far as registration of FIR is concerned, petitioner may move the appropriate court in that regard in independent proceedings. Now the petitioner apprehends W.P ( C) No.20118 of 2009 2 that further use of the vehicles for excavation of soil could be interdicted. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the conditions under which the vehicles have been released does not restrict the user of the vehicle for legitimate purposes, if necessary, on the strength of Ext.P1. 3. In the circumstances, on production of a copy of this judgment along with a representation, the District Collector shall pass orders on the petitioner’s request for deployment of the vehicles for the purpose mentioned in Ext.P1 itself. The District Collector shall also consider the requirement of the petitioner for use of these vehicles for excavation of ordinary earth in connection with the contract that he is entrusted with. Orders shall be passed by the District Collector within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.20118 of 2009 3 W.P ( C) No.20118 of 2009 4