IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 29TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 6369 of 2008(G) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ PURUSHOTHAMAN, S/O.APPUNNI, AGED 43, RESIDING AT PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, KORATTIKKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.HARISH R. MENON SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE TAHASILDAR, PONNANI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHANGARAMKULAM POLICE STATION, CHANGARAMKULAM, MALAPPURAM DIST. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ======================= W.P.(C) No. 6369 of 2008(G) ======================= Dated this the 29th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT In this writ petition the petitioner submits that proceedings were initiated against a vehicle belonging bearing Regn. No.KL 8 AE 1113 to the petitioner on the allegation that it was engaged in the unauthorised transportation of river sand. Petitioner submits that following Ext.P1 judgment he was issued Ext.P3 requiring him to appear before the 1st respondent on 18.2.2008. It is stated by the petitioner that the notice was served on him on 20.2.2008 and on receipt thereon, he approached the 1st respondent. Then he was informed that the orders were already passed. It is in this background this writ petition has been filed. 2. The fact that notice has been served on him belatedly, is evident from Ext.P4. Therefore, the petitioner could not have appeared before the 1st respondent prior to the passing of the order confiscating vehicle belonging to the petitioner. In view of this, I am of the view that an opportunity shall be given to the W.P.(C) No. 6369/2008/G -2- petitioner to contest the case before the 1st respondent. Otherwise it will be in violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order passed by the respondent against the petitioner confiscating his vehicle KL 8 E 1113 needs to be set aside. I do so. 2. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st Respondent to pass orders afresh with notice to the petitioner. The petitioner shall be given an opportunity of personal hearing. This shall be done as expeditiously as within 15 days from receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is clarified that in case there is delay in considering the matter, in the meanwhile it will be open to the petitioner to approach the 1st respondent seeking temporary release of the vehicle. If such application is made, the 1st respondent shall consider release of the vehicle, on executing sufficient security. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE jp