IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 34571 of 2008(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------------- JAMES MATHAI, S/O.KOSHY MATHAI, MUTIYIL THARAYIL, VENMONY.P.O, PUNTHALA, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAVEENDRAN SRI.PMM.NAJEEB KHAN RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. SENIOR GEOLOGIST, DISTRICT OFFICE, MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, REVENUE TOWER, ADOOR. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, ADOOR. 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANDALAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.N.SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.34571 of 2008 P ------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of May, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner submits that he owns a quarry permit for quarrying granite and laterite building stones from the property comprised in Survey No.536/12 of Kurumpala Village Office in Pathanamthitta District. It seems that the land belongs to another person. According to the petitioner, the quarrying permit is required only for the purpose of quarrying laterite stones for building purpose. The upper earth was removed by the petitioner on 15.10.2008 using a JCB and the same was being transported. It was then seized by the Tahsildar and it seems that the seizure of the vehicle has been reported to the District Collector. A notice was issued as Ext.P4 in connection with the seizure of the vehicle. According to the petitioner, seizure of the vehicle which was only used for transportation of mud and sand is illegal. He, therefore, prays for W.P.(C).NO.34571/2008 :: 2 :: a direction to the 1st respondent to release the vehicle. 2. It is up to the petitioner to approach the District Collector and demonstrate that there was no illegal transportation undertaken by the petitioner with the aid of Ext.P2 permit. But, I agree with the Learned counsel for the petitioner that expeditious orders are to be passed by the first respondent. 3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 4. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to pass expeditious orders in the matter of release of the vehicle mentioned in Exts.P4 and P5, KL 30/1787 and KL26-9735 as also with regard to KC- 08/AH 3739. The petitioner shall file a representation pointing out what he claims to be 'an authorised seizure' and this shall include a challenge against the authority of the Tahsildar to seize the vehicle. Orders with regard to the W.P.(C).NO.34571/2008 :: 3 :: release of the vehicle shall be passed within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I make it clear that I have not considered the merits of the contentions of the petitioner. They are left open. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the 1st respondent for compliance. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge