IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2011 / 21ST CHAITHRA 1933 RP.No. 299 of 2011(U) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.21600/2008 Dated 19/10/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION, THIRUVALLA. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, THIRUVALLA TALUK, THIRUVALLA. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SARAMMA THOMAS, MARAPPAD HOUSE, PONGA P.O., ALAPPUZHA 688 512. 2. GEORGE OOMMEN, MOOLASSERIL HOUSE, MEPRAL MURI, PERINGARA P.O., THIRUVALLA 689108. BY ADV. SRI. BABU CHERUKARA. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= R.P. No. 299 of 2011 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 11th day of April, 2011. O R D E R The State and its officers seek review of my judgment dated 19.10.2010, which reads as follows: “Petitioner's vehicle bearing registration No.KL-04-W 1526 was taken into custody by the first respondent alleging that the vehicle was used for the purpose of transporting gravel to fill up a paddy land. According to the petitioner, the gravel was being transported for filling up the foundation of the residential building being constructed by 4th respondent. Therefore, according to the petitioner the seizure was without any bonafides. It is in the above circumstance the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:- “(a) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the respondents 1 to 3 to release the vehicle No.KL-04 W-1526 to the petitioner forthwith at least on furnishing security for the purpose forthwith. (b) Issue any other orders as this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and also those are prayed for during the pendency of the writ petition.” 2. At the time of admission I had directed release of the vehicle to the petitioner on execution of a bond for an amount of Rs.10,000/-. It is submitted that pursuant to the interim order the vehicle has been released also. 3. No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents in this writ petition. The seizure of the vehicle can only be made if legal provisions authorise the same. Filling up of paddy land is governed by the Kerala Land Utilisation Order at the relevant time. That law does not authorise the seizure of the vehicle even if the same is being used for transporting gravel for filling up of paddy land. No other legal provision was relied upon before me in support of the seizure. As such, the seizure is clearly illegal and unsustainable. Therefore, the seizure of the petitioners vehicle and all further proceedings pursuant to the same are hereby quashed. Consequently the release of the vehicle by the interim order is made absolute and the bond issued by the petitioner for release of the petitioners vehicle shall stand cancelled. The 2nd respondent shall return the bond to the petitioner immediately. The writ petition is allowed as above.” R.P. No. 299 of 2011 -: 2 :- 2. The writ petition was admitted on 17.7.2008 and an interim order was passed directing release of the vehicle forthwith on execution of a bond for an amount of Rs. 10,000/-. For two long years, the respondents in the writ petition did not even think it fit to file a counter affidavit. It is under the above circumstances, the judgment happened to be passed. That judgment itself is dated 19.10.2010. The free certified copy of the judgment was received by the State on 2.11.2010. This review petition is filed on 25.3.2011. The long delay is sought to be explained thus in paragraph 4 of the review petition thus: “4. It is submitted that the judgment was received on 2.11.2010 and the same was placed for legal opinion for compliance of the judgment. For preparing the legal opinion a competent officer was directed to depute for a discussion and the competent officer furnished the relevant rules and accordingly it was opined that there was a scope for filing a review as the judgment is passed without noticing Rule 58(4) of Minor Mineral Concession Rules. Accordingly, a delay of 113 days occurred in preferring the review petition. The above delay occurred due to the administrative reasons and not wilful or deliberate. Unless the above delay is condoned, and the review petition is heard on merits, the review petitioners will be put to irreparable loss and injury.” 3. I do not find any merit in that explanation. Apart from that, this is not that important a case, which requires serious consideration by this Court in review. Of course, the learned Government Pleader submits that this may be cited as a precedent for other cases. I am not inclined to condone the R.P. No. 299 of 2011 -: 3 :- delay in filing the review petition and to consider the review petition on merits. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. But, I make it clear that the question of law raised is left open to be considered in appropriate other cases. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE.