Allowed

Habeeb Rahman v. M.C.Mohandas

Kerala HC13 Nov 2009Con.Case(C)/1347/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt case, the petitioner claimed the District Collector violated an interim order by failing to release his vehicle after a partial deposit. The Court held the earlier deposit of Rs.25,000 could be credited towards the interim order requirement, directing the Collector to release the vehicle only after the balance amount is paid and a bond executed.

What did the court decide?

District Collector directed to accept the balance Rs.25,000 payment and release the vehicle upon execution of the bond as per the interim order.

Habeeb Rahman Vs M.C.Mohandas — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 13TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 22ND KARTHIKA 1931

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 1347 of 2009(S)

¶6

--------------------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.15247/2009 DATED 23/10/2009

¶7

PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶8

------------------------------------

¶9

HABEEB RAHMAN, S/O.MUHAMMED, PERISSERY HOUSE, PUTHOORMADAM, PANTHEERANKAVU, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. MR.BABU S. NAIR

¶11

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

¶12

-----------------------------------------

¶13

M.C. MOHANDAS, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM.

¶14

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.P. NARAYANAN.

¶15

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/11/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

rs.

¶17

P.N.RAVINDRAN,J.

¶18

Contempt Case (C) No. 1347 of 2009 - S

¶19

Dated 13^th November, 2009

¶20

Judgment

¶21

Heard Sri. Babu S. Nair, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. P. Narayanan, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶22

The petitioner is the registered owner of a goods vehicle bearing registration No. KL-11X/3666. The said vehicle was seized by the Tahsildar, Ernad Taluk and produced before the District Collector, Malappuram on the allegation that it was used to transport river sand without a valid pass. Though the petitioner remitted the sum of Rs.25,000/- and moved for interim custody of the vehicle, that request was not granted. Thereafter, final orders were passed ordering confiscation of the vehicle. The District Collector, however, permitted the petitioner to avoid confiscation by remitting the sum of Rs.1,60,000/- which was fixed as the value of the vehicle. The petitioner challenged the order of confiscation by filing W.P. © No.15247 of 2009 in this Court. The said writ petition was admitted and notice ordered to the respondents therein. After

¶23

¶24

Contempt Case (C) No.1347/2009

¶25

notice, the writ petition was heard and Annexure A interim order was passed on 23.10.2009 directing release of the vehicle to the petitioner in the event of the petitioner depositing the sum of Rs.50,000/- with the District Collector and executing a bond undertaking to pay the balance sum of Rs.1,10,000/- in the event of the writ petition being dismissed. This Court also directed that the vehicle shall be released on the day the petitioner deposits the money and executes the bond. The grievance voiced by the petitioner is that though on receipt of Annexure A order, he had reported before the District Collector, Malappuram along with Annexure B receipt evidencing payment of Rs.25,000/- on 8.4.2009 and tendered the balance amount of Rs.25,000/- and expressed willingness to execute a bond for the balance amount of Rs.1,10,000/- the District Collector did not receive the balance sum of Rs.25,000/- or permit him to execute the bond and release the vehicle. On these grounds, he prays that appropriate action may be initiated against the District Collector, Malappuram

¶26

¶27

Contempt Case (C) No.1347/2009

¶28

under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for violating the directions issued by this Court in Annexure A order.

¶29

Sri. P. Narayanan, the learned Government Pleader

¶30

appearing for the District Collector, Malappuram denies the said allegation. He submits that on the terms of the interim order passed by this Court, the petitioner was bound to deposit the sum of Rs.50,000/- besides executing a bond as directed therein. He also submits that from the pleadings, it is evident that the petitioner was not prepared to deposit the sum of Rs.50,000/- and therefore it cannot be said that the District Collector has failed to obey Annexure A order.

¶31

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by

¶32

the learned counsel appearing on either side. Annexure B discloses that as early as on 8.4.2009, the petitioner had remitted the sum of Rs.25,000/- for getting release of his vehicle. Though such deposit was made, interim custody of the vehicle was not given. Thereafter, final orders were passed ordering confiscation which is under challenge in this Court. By

¶33

Annexure A order, this Court directed interim custody on payment of the sum of Rs.50,000/- and execution of a bond for

¶34

Contempt Case (C) No.1347/2009 4

¶35

the balance amount of Rs.1,10,000/-. In my opinion, as the petitioner has already deposited Rs.25,000/- on 8.4.2009, he was bound to pay only the balance amount of Rs.25,000/-. The deposit made by him on 8.4.2009 evidenced by Annexure B cannot, in my opinion, go unaccounted for. The learned Government Pleader does not dispute the authenticity and genuineness of Annexure B receipt. He has also no case that the said sum was deposited on any other account. In such circumstances, I dispose of this contempt case with the direction that if the payment evidenced by Annexure B receipt has been made by the petitioner for release of his vehicle by way of interim custody before final orders were passed, the said sum of Rs.25,000/- shall also be given credit to for the purpose of compliance with the order dated 23.10.2009 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.15247 of 2009. The District Collector, Malappuram shall on the petitioner depositing the balance amount after giving credit for the payment evidenced by Annexure B receipt, if such payment was made in respect of

¶36

the proceedings resulting in confiscation of the petitioner's vehicle, accept the balance sum of Rs.25,000/- and release the

¶37

¶38

Contempt Case (C) No.1347/2009

¶39

vehicle to the petitioner on his executing a bond as directed in

¶40

Annexure A order dated 23.10.2009.

¶41

P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge

¶42

vaa

Habeeb Rahman v. M.C.Mohandas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Habeeb Rahman v. M.C.Mohandas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Fathima Memorial Educational Trust Vs State of Kerala

Rajan Vs the District Collector,Malappuram

Chisna Valsan Vs the Controller of Examinations and Ors.

Shihabudheen Vs M.C. Mohandas

Sabunath.K.S. Vs S.Chandran and Two Others

Reeni Elsa Mathew Vs Dr.Thomas John Mampara