Disposed

Sulochana v. State of Kerala and Others

Kerala HC2 Nov 2009WP(C)/28281/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought interim custody of her seized autorickshaw used in transporting sandal wood. The court directed the authorities to finalise proceedings under Section 61A of the Kerala Forest Act within two months, else release the vehicle upon bank guarantee.

What did the court decide?

Direction to finalise proceedings under Section 61A of the Kerala Forest Act within two months; release of vehicle on bank guarantee if not.

Sulochana Vs State of Kerala and Others — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2009 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 28281 of 2009(E) --------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S): ---------------

¶7

SULOCHANA, W/O.RAJAN, T/AT ADUKATHPARAMBA, MADIKKAI, P.O.MADIKKAI, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DIST.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPT. OF FOREST, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, KANNUR.

¶13

FOREST RANGE OFFICER, KANHANGAD.

¶14

BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. M.H.HANIL KUMAR FOR R1-3

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.

¶17

W.P.(C) No. 28281 OF 2009

¶18

Dated this the 2^nd day of November, 2009

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

The petitioner is the registered owner of an Autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-60/3835. The said vehicle was seized by the Police and handed over to the Forest Range Officer on 8.7.2009 for transporting sandal wood logs. It is stated that a criminal case has also been registered in respect of the said incident. The grievance voiced by the petitioner in this writ petition is that though she had submitted Ext.P3 petition before the Assistant Conservator of Forests, Kannur, seeing interim custody of her vehicle, till date, orders have not been passed thereon. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to release the vehicle to her by way of interim custody. The respondents have filed a statement wherein it is stated that the petitioner’s request for interim custody was rejected on 8.10.2009 for the reason that the petitioner’s driver was also involved in the illegal transport of sandal wood logs.

¶21

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. The respondents have no case that the petitioner was involved in the commission of any offence. Her vehicle was driven by a paid driver. The petitioner is also not being prosecuted for the offences referred to in Ext.P2 FIR. The vehicle was

¶22

W.P.(C) No. 28281/09

¶23

¶24

admittedly seized on 8.7.2009. Nearly four months have passed thereafter. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the respondents have a duty to finalise the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under section 61A of the Kerala Forest Act expeditiously.

¶25

I accordingly dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents to finalise the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under section 61A of the Kerala Forest Act within two months from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment before the Assistant Conservator of Forests, Kannur. If the final orders are not passed within the said period, the second respondent shall release the autorickshaw to the petitioner on the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee for the value of the vehicle to be determined by a Mechanical Engineer of the Public Works Department not below the rank of Assistant Executive Engineer. The second respondent shall before final orders are passed, afford the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to state her case.

¶26

P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE

¶27

vps

Sulochana v. State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sulochana v. State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kottaram Trading Company Vs Corporation of Kochi

Saju P.Thomas Vs Mahatma Gandhi University, Rep.by Regist

Sudhamini Vs the Village Officer

Abdul Salam Vs the District Collector

M/S Cee Jee Lubricants Vs the Kerala State Road Transport Corporat

Sanoop Sunny Vs M..G.University