High Court Kerala High Court

Ratnakumar vs The District Collector on 21 December, 2010

Kerala High Court
Ratnakumar vs The District Collector on 21 December, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 37889 of 2010(I)


1. RATNAKUMAR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :21/12/2010

 O R D E R
                       ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                     ================
                  W.P.(C) NO. 37889 OF 2010
                =====================

         Dated this the 21st day of December, 2010

                          J U D G M E N T

Petitioner is the registered owner of a tipper lorry bearing

Regn.No.KL-17-F-2353. According to the petitioner, while the lorry

was being engaged in levelling a property for the construction of

a school ground, on the allegation that this vehicle was used in

violation of the provisions contained in the Kerala Minor Mineral

Concession Rules, the vehicle was seized by the 2nd respondent. It

is stated that the lorry is still detained by the 2nd respondent and

in such circumstances, the writ petition has been filed.

2. Admittedly, proceedings have been initiated against

the petitioner under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules.

Therefore, it is for the 1st respondent to finalise the proceedings

by issuing notice to the petitioner and after hearing him.

3. In that view of the matter, at this stage, the

proceedings do not warrant any interference from this Court.

However, that does not mean that the vehicle should be kept

under detention until the proceedings are finalised.

4. Now that the 1st respondent is seized of the matter, I

WPC No. 37889/10
:2 :

direct that it will be open to the petitioner to apply to the 1st

respondent for interim custody of the vehicle, in which event, the

1st respondent will forthwith pass orders thereon imposing such

conditions as he deems fit. It is directed that such orders will be

passed at any rate within 7 days of making the application along

with a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ

petition.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp