IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 16TH AUGUST 2011 / 25TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 22124 of 2011(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ C.SASI, KOTTAYIL HOUSE, OLAKETTIYAMBALAM, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) SRI.MATHEW SUNNY SRI.ANOOP.V.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA, PIN 688 001. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHENGANNUR POLICE STATION, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN 689 121. GOVT.PLEADER SMT.M.J.RAJASHREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.22124/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN HARIDAS AND THE PETITIONER DATED 18.2.2011. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE VEHICLE. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER WRITTEN by the ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA TO ALL THE DISTRICT COLLECTORS DATED 11.11.2010. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT PREPARED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND SUBMITTED TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 21.2.2011. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE GIVEN BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PULIYOOR TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA DATED 25.5.2011. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 16.7.2011. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.7.2011 IN WPC NO.20232/2011. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF the ORDER NO.C2-11794/2011 DATED 10.8.2011 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 22124 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 16th day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T Proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, who is the owner of a lorry bearing Regn.No.KL-31 A 7747. Pursuant to the directions of this Court as contained in Ext.P7 judgment in WP(C) No.20232/11 the District Collector has passed Ext.P8 order giving interim custody of the vehicle subject to the conditions mentioned therein. This requires the petitioner to remit 30% of the value and furnish security for the balance. It is challenging this order, the writ petition is filed. There is a further prayer to declare that the vehicle is not liable to be proceeded under the provisions of Act 28 of 2008. 2. First of all, the prayer for declaration is premature in as much as the statutory authority is yet to pronounce on the issue. When the proceedings initiated are not without jurisdiction, the course open to the person like the petitioner is to await final order in the matter and thereafter challenge the same. In that view the declaratory prayer sought at this stage is premature and I decline to entertain the same. WPC No. 22124/11 :2 : 3. In so far as the conditions imposed by the District Collector in Ext.P8 is concerned, a reading of Ext.P8 shows that the value fixed by the District Collector is based on the report obtained by the Regional Transport Officer. Further, the direction to remit 30% of the value fixed and to furnish security for the balance is also fully inconsistent with the principle laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala [2010(3)KHC 333]. 4. In that view I do not find any merit in the writ petition. It is made clear that it will be open to the petitioner to comply with the order, in which event, the vehicle will be released to the petitioner provided the conditions are complied within one week. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp