IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2011 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 6156 of 2011(I) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- 1. SUDHEERKUMAR, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. C.V.NARAYANAN, CHUKKATH HOUSE, IRAVIMANGALAM.P.O., THRISSUR. 2. C.B.ROLLY,S/O. BABY, AGED 35 YEARS, CHITTATTUKARA HOUSE, OLLUR.P.O.,THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD-678541. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD-678014. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 6156 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 8th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T Heard both sides. 2. Ext.P4 is under challenge. Ext.P4 is a notice issued by the Additional Tahsildar proposing to confiscate the vehicles bearing Regn.Nos.KL-8 AA 3377 and KL-11N 9889, of which the petitioners claim to be registered owners. Such proceedings have been initiated on the allegation that the vehicles were used for unauthorised transportation of ordinary sand and the proceedings are under the provisions of the MMDR Act, 1957. 3. Evidently, the Additional Tahsildar who has issued Ext.P4 cannot be said to be a competent authority under the said Act. Therefore, I should accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that Ext.P4 is without jurisdiction. 4. In that view of the matter, I quash Ext.P4 and direct that the vehicles shall be released on the production of a copy of this judgment. However, it is clarified that this judgment will not stand in the way of the appropriate authority under the Act to initiate action against the vehicles in question in accordance with WPC No. 6156/11 :2 : the provisions of the said Act. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp