IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 29174 of 2011(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- BALAMURUGAN, S/O.CHINNU, 1/66, WEST RAJAPALAYAM VILLAGE, ATTUR TALUK, SALEM DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU REPRESENTED BY ITS P/A. HOLDR V.K.VIMAL, S/O.DIVIJAYAN, KOTTAPRAMBIL HOUSE, ALA VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-689 121. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-689 121. 3. V,GOPINATHAN PILLAI, PWD CONTRACTOR, KOMACHAM VEEDU, CHETTIKULANGARA P.O., MAVELIKKARA,690 106. SR.GOVT.PLEADER SMT.M.J.RAJASHREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.29174/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBITS P1.TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE RELATING TO EARTH MOVING EQUIPMENT BEARING REGISTRATION NO.TN-48J-7152(JCB). EXHIBITS P2.TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER EXECUTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER ON 21/3/2011 EVIDENCING ENTRUSTMENT TO HIM WITH THE EQUIPMENT MENTIONED IN EXHIBITS P1. EXHIBITS P3.TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 19/10/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBITS P4.TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO2545 OF SRO, CHENGANNUR, EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF SRI.SOURAB BANERJI. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 29174 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 10th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the registered owner of a JCB bearing Regn.No.TN-48 J 7152. According to the petitioner, the vehicle was hired by the 3rd respondent. While the vehicle was engaged in levelling a garden land, it was seized by the 1st respondent and a report was made to the 2nd respondent. It is aggrieved by the above seizure of the vehicle, this writ petition is filed. 2. Learned Government Pleader submits that the levelling of the land was in violation of a ban order imposed by the Grama Panchayat. However, the report obtained by the learned Government Pleader from the 1st respondent does not indicate under which enactment the proceedings have been initiated against the vehicle in question. 3. In my view, when the respondents themselves are not certain about the alleged violation committed by the petitioner, there is absolutely no justification for keeping the vehicle under detention. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition directing that the WPC No. 29174/11 :2 : vehicle of the petitioner which was seized as early as on 19/10/11 shall be released to him by the 1st respondent on the production of a copy of this judgment. However, the release of the vehicle shall be subject to the right of respondents 1 and 2 to initiate any proceedings, which they deem fit against the vehicle in question and if any such proceedings are initiated, it shall be the responsibility of the petitioner to produce the vehicle in question before the appropriate authority. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp //True Copy// PA to Judge