Dismissed

Jose.P.v., v. the Divisional Forest Officer

Kerala HC15 Feb 2019WP(C)/2966/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court directed the respondents to complete confiscation proceedings for a vehicle released in 2003. The additional third respondent is to act upon production of vehicle documents within three months of the judgment.

What did the court decide?

The third respondent to complete the confiscation proceedings within three months of receipt of the judgment copy upon production of the Registration Certificate and vehicle details.

Jose.P.v., Vs the Divisional Forest… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

FRIDAY ,THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 26TH MAGHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 2966 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

JOSE.P.V., AGED 61 YEARS S/O VARGHESE, PAINADATHU HOUSE, ADIMALY KARA, MANNAMKANDAM VILLAGE, ADIMALY P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, MUNNAR DIVISION, DEVIKULAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685612.

¶11

2 THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER MARAYOOR FOREST STATION, MARAYOOR P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 620.

¶12

3 DFO MARAYOOR. (ADDL.R3 SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 31/01/2019 )

¶13

SPL.GP SANDESH RAJA.K

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No. 2966 of 2019

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking directions to the 1^st respondent to complete the confiscation proceedings with respect to vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-14-5893 involved in O.R.No.69/2003 of Marayoor Forest Station. On instructions of the Special Government Pleader, the DFO, Marayoor has been suo-motu impleaded as additional 3^rd respondent in the writ petition.

¶19

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the vehicle was released in 2003 itself. However the confiscation proceedings are not completed.

¶20

In the above view of the matter, in case the petitioner produces the Registration Certificate and other details of the vehicle before the 3^rd respondent, steps shall be taken by the 3^rd respondent to complete the confiscation proceedings without delay. Orders shall be passed at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶21

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN

JUDGE

WP(C).No. 2966 of 2019 3

¶27

APPENDIX

¶28

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶29

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 14.11.2003. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BOND EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 15.12.2003. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE BANK MANAGER FROM WHERE THE PETITIONER OBTAINED BANK GUARANTEE TO RENEW THE BANK GUARANTEE FOR A FURTHER OF 2 YEARS FROM DECEMBER 2017 DATED 29.11.2017.

¶30

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL

¶31

//TRUE COPY// Sd/PA TO JUDGE

Jose.P.v., v. the Divisional Forest Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jose.P.v., v. the Divisional Forest Officer

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

V. Udayakumar, Vs State of Kera

Nithin Lukose, Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Mathew Michael, Vs Dhanlaxmi Bank

Thomas Kandanchery Vs State of Kerala

Ravi Kulangara Vs the Secretary

K.I.Joseph, Vs the Commissioner(Land Revenue)