Sushilkumar vs The District Collector on 28 August, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 25046 of 2009(A)


1. SUSHILKUMAR, S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR.
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI

 Dated :28/08/2009

 O R D E R
                          V.GIRI, J
                        -------------------
                    W.P.(C).25046/2009
                       --------------------
           Dated this the 28th day of August, 2009

                        JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the registered owner of a vehicle

bearing registration No.KL-13-E-729. The vehicle was

apparently used for transporting sand on 23.6.2009 and it is

contended that the transportation was accompanied by a

valid pass. The vehicle was intercepted by the 2nd

respondent. Thereafter, the files were forwarded to the

District Collector, who has passed an order directing the

release of the vehicle on interim custody pending final

orders, subject to certain conditions. The conditions

imposed includes a direction to remit an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/-, as security with two solvent sureties for equal

amount. Other conditions including an interdiction against

user of the vehicle within the limits of the District have also

been imposed. These conditions have been challenged in the

writ petition.

2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Government Pleader.

3. The direction that the vehicle shall not be used for

W.P.(C).25046/09
2

transportation of sand till the case is disposed of does not

warrant any interference. It is in conformity with the

directions in Subramanian Vs. State of Kerala [2009 (1)

KLT 77). So also, the direction that the vehicle shall not be

used within the limits of the District does not warrant any

interference. But, I am of the view that the direction to

remit Rs.1,00,000/- seems to be onerous. Therefore, if the

RC owner remits half the amount now directed to be

deposited, then such deposit will be treated as due

compliance with the directions.

4. None of the other conditions are modified. Those

conditions will, therefore, be complied with by the

petitioner.

5. Once the conditions, subject to the modifications effected

in this judgment, are complied with, then the vehicle shall

be released to the petitioner.

Subject to the above, the writ petition is disposed of.

V.GIRI,
Judge

mrcs