IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2011 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 14946 of 2011(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- JOSHY C.A., S/O. ANTONY, AGED 54 YEARS, CHITTILAPPILLY HOUSE, KAKKASSERY P.O., ELAVALLY VILLAGE, CHAVAKKADU TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. (OWNER OF THE LORRY BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL-46/B 8806). BY ADV. MR. P.M.ZIRAJ RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT, TALUK OFFICE, CHAVAKKADU TALUK. 680 506 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER (R.D.O.), THRISSUR 680001 3. TAHSILDAR, CHAVAKKADU TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 506 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. P. NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2011 ALONG WITH W.PC. 14947 OF 2011 AND CONNECTED CASES THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P (C) No. 14946, 14947, 14948, 14994, 14995, 14996 & 14997 of 2011 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 3rd June , 2011 JUDGMENT The issue involved in all these cases is rather similar and hence is dealt with together. 2. The petitioners are stated as aggrieved of the highhanded action taken by the first respondent, who has taken custody of the vehicles bearing Nos. KL 46 B 8806, KL 46 D 3991, KL 8 AL 8896, KL 08 AD 3093, KL 08 Y 1009, KL 46 C 9022 and KL 46 A 1340 on 29.05.2011, alleging that, petitioners tried to demolish the hill with an intention to remove the earth and disturbing the ecological balance. Ext. P1 is the mahazar in all these cases. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the first respondent is having absolutely no jurisdiction whatsoever to seize the vehicles and hence the challenge. 3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that, the idea and understanding of the petitioners as to the power, jurisdiction and competence is not correct or proper. According to the learned Government Pleader, the opening sentence in the mahazar itself refers to the authority given to the first respondent W.P. (C) No. 14946 of 2011 & connected cases : 2 : by the District Collector in this regard and that the matter has to be considered by the concerned RDO, before whom the matter is pending consideration; the proceedings have already been forwarded to the RDO by the first respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, the petitioners would be satisfied, if a direction is given to the second respondent (RDO) to have the proceedings finalized within a reasonable time. In the above circumstances, the writ petitions are disposed of, directing the second respondent to consider the claim of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders regarding the request for granting interim custody of the vehicles, within a period of 'two weeks' and final orders shall be passed in accordance with law within 'six weeks' there after. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with copy of the writ petition before the second respondent for further steps. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd