IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 27TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 4553 of 2009(P) ---------------------------------------- (CRL.M.P.NO.298/09 DTD. 4/2/09 OF THE JFMC AT ETTUMANOOR) PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- ARUN KUMAR, AGED 26, S/O.SUKUMARAN, ARUN NIVAS, SOUTH GATE PO., VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DIST. BY ADV. MR.P.A.MOHAMMED SHAH RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE , GANDHINAGAR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM. 3. TAHSILDAR, KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM. 4. THE GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, DISTRICT OFFICE, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM. 5. MR.K.B.BABY KUMMAMPALLI VEEDU, N.E. WARD, VAIKOM,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. P.A. SALIM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== WP(C) No.4553 OF 2009 ===================== Dated this the 16th day of February 2009 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed with a prayer to quash Ext.P12 order and to direct the first respondent to release the Swaraj Mazda Tipper Mini Lorry bearing Reg.No.KL-36 5002 which is owned by the petitioner. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. This Court in Crl.M.C.No.53 of 2009 had held that the right of the parties is to approach the District Collector for appropriate relief and that their option to come to this Court with petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is when the District Collector did not take appropriate action. This Court had taken a firm view in the decision referred to above that the Magistrate shall not have any jurisdiction in the light of a Division Bench ruling, the correctness of which is now pending consideration before the Supreme Court. So when the Magistrate does not have any power, naturally any order passed by him may not have the legal effect. In this case, the petitioner had chosen to appear before the District Collector and got an order, who alleging that the first respondent is not WP(C) 4553/2009 -:2:- releasing the vehicle, approached the learned Magistrate and got another order. Now as things stand today, it is the District Collector's order that has to be implemented and therefore I direct the first respondent to release the vehicle to the petitioner on satisfaction of the conditions laid down in the District Collector's order. Therefore the writ petition is allowed and direction is given accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-