IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 4TH OCTOBER 2010 / 12TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 29851 of 2010(F) ----------------------- PETITIONER : ----------------- SAINUL ABID.K.A., S/O.ASSAINAR, KARTHODATH HOUSE, VELUMPIRIYAMPADAM, BHOODANAM COLONY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT – 679 321 . 2. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT – 679 315 . 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POTHUKAL POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT – 678 115 . R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 29851 of 2010 F ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 4th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a registered owner of a tipper lorry bearing registration No.KL-10/AB-5511. It would appear that the vehicle has been seized on the allegation that it was used for the unauthorised transportation of river sand. Ext.P1 is stated to be a notice, Ext.P2 is the mahazar and Ext.P3 is the communication issued by the second respondent forwarding the proceedings to the first respondent for further action. It is challenging the aforesaid proceedings, this writ petition is filed, mainly referring to the contradiction in Exts.P1 and P2 regarding the date of alleged seizure. 2. In my view, since the proceedings under the Act are pending before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, it is for the Sub Divisional Magistrate to consider it and this Court will not be justified in venturing into an exercise requiring resolution of factual issues. Therefore, I decline the prayer of the petitioner WPC.29851/10 : 2 : to interfere with the proceedings as such. 3. The first respondent is directed to expedite the proceedings in accordance with law and pass final orders in the matter. 4. In the meantime, if the petitioner is desirous of getting interim custody of the vehicle, it will be open to the petitioner to approach the first respondent, who shall consider the request of the petitioner in terms of the provisions in Shan C.T. Vs. State of Kerala [2010 (3) KHC 333]. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks