Allowed

Musthafa P. v. the District Collector and Another

Kerala HC1 Oct 2010RP/863/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review petition in WPC.22434/2010 allowed. Despite accepting the dismissal and agreeing to pay, petitioner requested instalments. Court modified the earlier judgment to permit payment via instalments with security and conditions on vehicle usage.

What did the court decide?

Granting facility to pay the value of the vehicle towards river management fund in instalments of Rs.1 lakh cash and security for the balance with five equal monthly instalments.

Musthafa P. Vs the District Collector and Another — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 1ST OCTOBER 2010 / 9TH ASWINA 1932

¶5

RP.No. 863 of 2010(D)

¶6

--------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.22434/2010 Dated 13/08/2010

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER

¶8

¶9

MUSTHAFA.P,S/O AIMU HAJI,

¶10

AGED 36 YEARS, PALLIKKARA HOUSE, PONMALA, CHENGOTTUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DIST. (RC OWNER OF KL-10-AD-7330)

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS

¶12

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS

¶13

¶14

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, MALAPPURAM.676505.

¶15

THAHSILDAR, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DIST. 679322.

¶16

GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.I.V.PRAMODH

¶17

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

S.SIRI JAGAN, J.

==================

R.P.No. 863 of 2010

==================

Dated this the 1^st day of October, 2010 O R D E R

¶23

This review petition is filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C).No. 22434/2010. That writ petition was dismissed along with a batch of writ petitions. The petitioner submits that although the petitioner accepts the said judgment and agrees to pay the amounts directed to be paid by the petitioner, the petitioner may be given instalment facility to pay the amounts, insofar as the petitioner does not intend to challenge the said judgment in appeal.

¶24

I have heard the learned Government Pleader also.

¶25

Insofar as the petitioner has voluntarily come forward to pay the amount without any dispute regarding the judgment impugned, I am inclined to modify the judgment, as far as W.P.(C). No.22434/2010 is concerned, granting the petitioner the facility to pay the value of the vehicle towards river management fund in instalments. Accordingly, the following further directions are issued in the writ petition;

¶26

The petitioner shall pay Rs.1 lakh out of the amounts due within two weeks and furnish security for the balance amount to the satisfaction of the appropriate authority. On payment of Rs.1 lakh and furnishing security for the balance, the vehicle shall be released to the

¶27

r.p.863/10 2

¶28

petitioner subject of course to the production by the petitioner of credentials regarding the ownership of the vehicle. The balance shall be paid in five equal monthly instalments starting from 1.11.2010. Every subsequent instalment shall be paid on the first working day of every succeeding month. This is subject to the further condition that the petitioner shall not alienate or otherwise part with possession of the vehicle until the entire amount is paid off. The petitioner shall also keep the vehicle in good working condition. However, if the petitioner uses the vehicle for similar unlawful activities, the vehicle shall be seized immediately and shall not be released until final orders are passed. If the petitioner commits default in payment of any one instalment or does not comply with any of the above conditions, it would be open to the respondents to immediately seize the vehicle and take steps to sell the same to recover the amount in a lump sum.

¶29

The judgment in the writ petition would stand modified as above.

¶30

sdk+

¶31

Sd/S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

¶32

///True copy///

¶33

P.A. to Judge

Musthafa P. v. the District Collector and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Musthafa P. v. the District Collector and Another

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

Arunodhayam Sndp NO.973 Vs Mini Antony

J.Ponnamma Vs Fact and Others

M.Mathukutty Vs Chairman, K.S.E.B.

Lijoy Vs Joint Regional Transport Officer

C.Ravindranath Vs State of Kerala

K.Vijayan Vs the Chairman, K.S.E.B