IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2010 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 16121 of 2010(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- PRADEEP KUMAR.V., PRASANNA BHAVANAM, CHUNAKKARA VADUVIL, CHUNAKKARA P.O., MAVELIKARA. BY ADV. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAYAMKULAM. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 16121 of 2010 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 26th day of May, 2010. J U D G M E N T Petitioner's Earth Mover (JCB) has been seized by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kayamkulam on 23-4-2010 alleging violation of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. The petitioner alleges that since the petitioner did not hear anything about the seizure of the vehicle, he contacted the 1st respondent's office on 17-5-2010. When the 1st respondent informed him that a hearing was scheduled on that day, the petitioner informed the 1st respondent that he has not received any notice in respect thereof. The District Collector told him that a notice has already been sent and the petitioner could participate in the hearing on that day. Thereupon, the petitioner requested for copies of seizure mahazar and other reports sought to be relied upon by the 1st respondent against the petitioner, which were not furnished to him. He was asked to give a statement and he gave a statement to the effect that the vehicle was used to clear a pond with an intention to construct a retaining wall. The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is that neither the vehicle is being released nor final orders are passed. The petitioner further submits that even if final orders are passed, it is violative of the principles of natural justice since the petitioner had not been given a notice for hearing with sufficient time to defend himself and he has also been furnished with documents. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. I am not inclined to go into the disputed questions. I think that in the interest of justice, the District Collector should re-hear the petitioner after furnishing him with all the documents based on which the District Collector proposes to pass orders and granting opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: W.P.C. No. 16121/2010 -: 2 :- The 1st respondent shall furnish to the petitioner all documents proposed to be relied upon by the 1st respondent for passing final orders within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall appear before the 1st respondent on 9-6-2010 with all his evidence to defend himself, on which date the 1st respondent shall hear the petitioner, pass orders and communicate the same to the petitioner within one week therefrom. This judgment shall prevail even if the District Collector has, in the mean while, passed orders pursuant to hearing dated 17-5-2010. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE.