Kerala High Court
WP(C)/38753/2010 of SAJI GEORGE Vs THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE on 31 December 2010
HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 31ST DECEMBER 2010 / 10TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 38753 of 2010(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SAJI GEORGE, S/O.GEORGE, AGED 39, THEKKUMMURIYIL HOUSE, VALLAMKULAM,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN
FRIDAY, THE 31ST DECEMBER 2010 / 10TH POUSHA 1932
WP(C).No. 38753 of 2010(T)
--------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
---------------
SAJI GEORGE, S/O.GEORGE, AGED 39,
THEKKUMMURIYIL HOUSE, VALLAMKULAM, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.SAKIR.K.H.
RESPONDENT(S):
---------------
1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN 689645.
2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689645.
3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695001.
SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.N. SANTHOSH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 31/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
K.SURENDRAMOHAN, J.
---------------------------------------------- WP (C) No. 38753 of 2010
---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31[st] day of December, 2010
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner has filed this writ petition complainingthat a canoe owned by him covered by Ext.P1 licence, hasbeen taken into custody by the first respondent and isretained by him. According to the petitioner, the canoewas empty at the time of seizure and did not contain anyunauthorised article, including river sand. Therefore, thefirst respondent has no authority to retain the said canoein custody. The petitioner has submitted Ext.P2 beforethe 2[nd] respondent seeking release of his canoe. Ext.P2was submitted on obtaining the information from the firstrespondent that the canoe had been handed over to thecustody of the 2[nd] respondent. According to thepetitioner, the detention of his canoe has been the causeof a lot of hardship to him.
2. Since Ext.P2 is pending consideration before the 2[nd] respondent, it is sufficient that the same is directed tobe considered and disposed of without delay.
WP (C) No. 38753 of 2010
2
3. In the above circumstance, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 2[nd] respondent to consider andpass orders on Ext. P2 representation in accordance withlaw, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within threeweeks from the date of receipt of a copy of thisjudgement.
K.SURENDRAMOHAN,
JUDGE.
rkc