IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 10TH APRIL 2008 / 21ST CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 11895 of 2008(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SHAMEER, S/O YOUSSAF, AGED 28 YEARS, PADINJAREVEETTIL, PEZHAKKAPILLY MULAVOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SMT.K.V.RESHMI RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, N.PARAVUR. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ====================================== WRIT PETITION NO. 11895 OF 2008 ====================================== Dated this the 10th day of April 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner complains that a consignment of 4000 kilo grams of wheat along with a mini lorry bearing Reg.No.KL-5/K 1427 has been seized by the second respondent and it is now in the custody of the first respondent. According to the petitioner, the wheat has been legally procured by him as per Exts.P2 and P4 and therefore the very seizure and further proceedings are totally unwarranted. 2. Since the proceedings are obviously initiated under the Essential Commodities Act, it is for the first respondent to appreciate the contentions of the parties and take a decision in the matter. At this stage, since the first respondent is to examine the issue, it will be pre-mature for this Court to appreciate the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Therefore, this writ petition will stand disposed of directing that the first respondent, before whom the petitioner has made Ext.P5 representation, shall hear the petitioner and W.P.(C)11895/2008 -2- pass appropriate orders thereon. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within eight weeks from today. 4. It is undertaken by the learned Government Pleader that they will preserve the wheat under seizure. It is directed that in case the order to be passed is in favour of the petitioner, it will be the duty of the respondent to ensure that either equal quantity of wheat of the same quality or its value will be paid to him. 5. However, insofar as the vehicle that is under seizure is concerned, I do not think that its continued detention is necessary. The first respondent shall get the value of the vehicle assessed by an officer of the Motor Vehicles Department and if the petitioner furnishes bank guarantee for the said value, the vehicle will be released on an undertaking that the vehicle will be produced as and when necessary. The petitioner will produce a copy of the judgment before the first respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE W.P.(C)11895/2008 -2- css/