IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2011 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 10182 of 2011(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ JOSE ABRAHAM, S/O. SRI. ABRAHAM, BSFSKKRKKSTS VEEDU, VAZHAKULAM, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.BALACHANDRAN (PN) RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR, CRIME BRANCH CID, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE DIVISONAL FOREST OFFICER (DFO), NORTH WAYANAD FOREST DIVISION, MANANTHAWADY, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 3. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, BEGUR FOREST RANGE, MANANTHAWADY, WAYANAD DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.10182 OF 2011 -------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of March 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of Ext.P12 order passed under Section 61(A) of the Kerala Forest Act (whereby the vehicle belonging to the petitioner was confiscated), which according to the petitioner has been passed, without giving an opportunity for hearing, despite the specific direction given by a Division Bench of this Court as per Ext.P9 judgment dated 05-04-2010 in Writ Appeal No.552/2010. 2. Heard the learned Govt. Pleader as well. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the factum of sending notice stands admitted, but, the question is whether the same was served to the petitioner. Referring to Ext.P12, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the process on the petitioner was not completed obviously because of the wrong address mentioned therein and the notice happened to be returned. Reference is also made to Ext.P14 verdict passed by this Court in a similar circumstance, whereby the custody of vehicle has been released subject to furnishing 'bank guarantee' which course is sought to be pursued in the present case with liberty to pursue the matter by filing an Appeal. W.P.(C) No. 10182/2011 - 2 - 4. In the above circumstances, the interim custody of the vehicle is directed to be released to the petitioner on condition that the petitioner furnishes 'bank guarantee' for the requisite amount to the satisfaction of the authority concerned. This shall be done forthwith, at any rate within 'one week' from the date of production of the 'bank guarantee'. The petitioner is relegated to file statutory appeal under Section 61(B), if he is aggrieved in any manner of Ext.P12 order passed under Section 61(A). Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE vdv