IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2011 / 2ND ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 16920 of 2011(L) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. RAJU, AGED 38 YEARS S/O. THANKAPPAN ACHARI, 6/289 KATTUPARAMBIL MANNARASSALA,KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. SANATHAMMA DIVAKARAN, AGED 53 YEARS W/O.DIVAKARAN, SURESH BHAVANAM, KARIPUZHA PO PALLIPPADU, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 690 109. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE NOORANAD POLICE STATION NOORANAD, ALAPPUZHA 690 540. 2. THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 689 121. 3. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. SMT. M.J. RAJASREE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 16920 of 2011(L) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATON CERTIFICATE OF HGV TIPPER OWNED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEARING REGISTRATION NUMBER KL.08/AQ.2149 EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF HGV TIPPER OWNED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEARING REGISTRATION NUMBER KL.04.T.8317 EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 21.06.2011 MADE BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(MS) NO. 85/2010/Ind. DATED 5.04.2010. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C)No.16920 OF 2011 ......................................................................... Dated this the 23rd June, 2011 J U D G M E N T The vehicles bearing Nos.KL.08/AQ/2149 and KL.04/T.8317 belonging to the petitioners were seized by the first respondent alleging violation of the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation)Act,1957 and Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967. The challenge has been raised on many a ground. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents are liable to produce the vehicles before the court of competent jurisdiction, so as to enable the petitioners to pursue the remedy in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 3. In view of the limited nature of the relief now pressed before this court, this Court does not find it necessary to adjudicate the matter on merits. Accordingly, the writ petition is W.P.(C)No.16920 OF 2011 2 disposed of, directing the respondents to cause production of the vehicles before the competent Court, if any contravention of relevant provisions of law is there, within three days from the date of production of a copy of the judgment; simultaneously informing the petitioners as to the Court before which the vehicles are intended to be produced . It is made clear that this will not bar the way of the respondents in proceeding with appropriate steps in connection with the offence, if any, against the petitioners. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk