IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2011 / 31ST ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 19460 of 2011(F) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- SUNIL,AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.SAMUEL, KRIPA BHAVANAM, VETTIYAR P.O., VIA MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VENMONY POLICE STATION, VENMONY,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-689509 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CNENGANUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-689121 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688 001 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.M.H.HANIL KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.19460/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE PERMIT ISSUED BY THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MAVELIKKARA RELATING TO LORRY NO.KL-14D03237. P2:- COPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHAZAR PREPARED BY THE IST RESPONDENT IN CONNECTION WITH THE SEIZURE OF VEHICLE MENTIONED IN EXT.P1. P3:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 7.1.2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P4:- COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER GO(MS) NO.85/2010 /IND DTD. 5.4.2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.19460 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner claims to be the registered owner of Tata Tipper Lorry bearing registration No.KL-14D-3237. The vehicle was taken into the custody on 4.7.2011 and is now entrusted to the 2nd respondent. According to the petitioner the proceedings were initiated under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957 and that the allegations do not make out a case against him under the said Act. With these allegations, seeking a direction for release of the said vehicle, the writ petition is filed. 2. Learned Government Pleader submits that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner are for violation of Act 28/2008. It is stated that the seizure of the vehicle has been reported to the 3rd respondent and that he is seized of the matter. 3. As already seen that the petitioner has approached this Court on the premise that the proceedings initiated are under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957, which submission is factually incorrect. Now that it is W.P(C) No.19460 of 2011 2 disclosed that under Act 28/2008 the District Collector is proceeding with the matter, the only order that is required to be passed is that the 3rd respondent shall expedite the matter and orders shall be passed with notice to the petitioner. 4. Taking note of the submission of the petitioner that the vehicle detained by the respondent is left exposed to sun and rain and that he should be given interim custody, I direct that it will be open to the petitioner to make an application before the 3rd respondent, in which event the 3rd respondent will pass orders thereon. It is clarified that in the event the 3rd respondent decides to release the vehicle, it will be open to him to impose suitable conditions. Such orders shall be passed within ten days from the date of receipt of application along with a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE ab