IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 29255 of 2009(B)
1. KURIAKOSE, S/O. NIKLAVOS, AGED 28 YEARS
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE
... Respondent
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
For Petitioner :SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :16/10/2009
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
---------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 29255 OF 2009
--------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of October, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Heard Sri. Shoby K.Francise, the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner and Sri. P.N.Santhosh, the learned Government
Pleader appearing for the respondents.
2. The petitioner is the registered owner of a mini lorry bearing
Reg. No. KL-13-B-299. The said vehicle was seized by the second
respondent and produced before the District Collector, Thrissur, on
11.9.2009, on the allegation that it was used to transport river sand
without a valid pass. The petitioner thereupon filed W.P.(C)
No.26126 of 2009 in this Court. By Ext.P2 judgment delivered on
16.9.2009, this Court disposed of the said writ petition with a
direction to the District Collector, Thrissur, to consider petitioner’s
request for the interim custody of the vehicle and pass orders
thereon within 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the
judgment. The District Collector was also directed to pass final
orders within three months. The District Collector thereafter heard
the petitioner and passed Ext.P3 order granting interim custody of
W.P.(C) No. 29255/09
2
the vehicle to the petitioner subject to the terms and conditions
stipulated therein. He inter alia directed the petitioner to remit the
sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum. The
said direction to remit Rs.1,00,000/- in cash is challenged in this writ
petition.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends
that the direction issued by the District Collector to deposit
Rs.1,00,000/- in cash is an onerous condition and cannot be
complied with. He contends that the said direction has been issued
with a view to ensure that the order releasing the vehicle by way of
interim custody is rendered illusory and meaningless. Per contra, the
learned Government Pleader contends that such a condition was
stipulated in view of previous instances where persons who had
obtained interim custody of vehicles had disposed of their vehicles
for scrap value and the State was disabled from proceeding against
the vehicles and realising the value of the vehicle by sale in public
auction.
I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the
learned counsel appearing on either side. In view of the fact that in
W.P.(C) No. 29255/09
3
the case on hand the vehicle is nearly 15 years old, it has to be
necessarily held that the direction issued by the District Collector to
deposit Rs.1,00,000/- in cash is onerous condition. However that
does not mean that the petitioner should be left free to deal with the
vehicle in any manner he likes. I accordingly dispose of this writ
petition with the direction that in the event of the petitioner depositing
the sum of Rs.25,000/- in cash and furnishing a bank guarantee for
the sum of Rs.50,000/- to the satisfaction of the District Collector,
Thrissur, the vehicle shall be released to the petitioner by way of
interim custody as directed in Ext.P3. The petitioner shall abide by
the other conditions stipulated in Ext.P3. The petitioner shall also be
given a reasonable opportunity to challenge the final order in other
appropriate proceedings and for that purpose, the bank guarantee
shall not be invoked for a period of one month, after final orders are
passed, as directed in Ext.P2.
P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE
vps
W.P.(C) No. 29255/09
4