Lalji Gopinathan vs The Sub Collector (Rdo) on 27 January, 2011

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 1899 of 2011(J)


1. LALJI GOPINATHAN, SON OF GOPINATHAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE SUB COLLECTOR (RDO),
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE TAHSILDAR, CHENGANNUR,

3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.G.HARIHARAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :27/01/2011

 O R D E R
                       ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

             ```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
                   W.P.(C) No. 1899 of 2011 J
             ```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
          Dated this the 27th day of January, 2011

                            J U D G M E N T

Petitioner has approached this Court, aggrieved by

clauses 1 and 4 of Ext.P4 order. According to the petitioner,

he is the registered owner of vehicle bearing registration

No.KL-5Q-1240. Proceedings were initiated under the Kerala

Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967, and at that stage,

petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)

No.35086/2010. Pursuant to the directions in that case, the

District Collector issued Ext.P4 order, giving interim custody of

the vehicle to the petitioner. Clause 1 of Ext.P4 says that the

vehicle shall not be used for transportation of gravel and

clause 4 says that if the vehicle is involved in similar offence,

the vehicle will not be given on interim custody. It is these two

provisions of Ext.P4 which are challenged in this writ petition.

2. In my view, the aforesaid two conditions contained

in Ext.P4 do not affect the petitioner to engage in any

W.P.(C) No.1899/2011
: 2 :

legitimate activities. These provisions only mean that the

vehicle cannot be used for illegitimate activities. If that be the

purport of aforesaid provisions of Ext.P4, I am not persuaded

to accept the plea of the petitioner that these provisions are

illegal.

3. Therefore, clarifying the position as above, I

dispose of this writ petition.

It is also clarified that, if according to the petitioner, the

vehicle has been detained only for the reason that the vehicle

has been engaged in transportation of gravel, on the

production of a copy of this judgment, the third respondent will

pass appropriate orders in the matter.

(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
aks