Kerala High Court
WP(C)/38121/2008 of ABRAHAM Vs DISTRICT COLLECTOR & OTHERS on 26 December 2008
HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 26TH DECEMBER 2008 / 5TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 38121 of 2008(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- ABRAHAM, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.DEVASSY, 9/509, MOOLAN HOUSE, AYYAMPUZHA. BY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
FRIDAY, THE 26TH DECEMBER 2008 / 5TH POUSHA 1930
WP(C).No. 38121 of 2008(L)
--------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------------
ABRAHAM, AGED 64 YEARS,S/O.DEVASSY, 9/509, MOOLAN HOUSE,AYYAMPUZHA.
BY ADV. SRI.K.SUNILKUMAR
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------------
1.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE,KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM.KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM.
2.THE TAHASILDAR, TALUK OFFICE,ALUVA.ALUVA.
3.THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
KALADY POLICE STATION
GOVT.PLEADER SRI.SANDESH RAJA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON26/12/2008, ALONG WITH WPC NO.38131/08, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAYDELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
==============
W.P.(C) NOs. 38121 & 38131 OF 2008
========================
Dated this the 26[th]day of December, 2008
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 Petitioners are the registered owners of Mini Tipper Lorries bearing Regn. Nos.KL 02/T 6879 and KL 41/B 657. According to them, on21.12.2008, while the vehicles were carrying soil, the 3[rd] respondent seizedthe vehicles and entrusted the same to the 2[nd] respondent, who hasproduced the same before the 1[st] respondent.
2. Being the registered owners, they have sought interim custodyof the vehicles and Ext.P2 in these writ petitions are the applications filedby them. Complaint in these writ petitions, is that orders have not beenpassed on Ext.P2.
Being the registered owners, they have sought interim custody
3. If as stated by the petitioners, they have approached to the 1[st]respondent seeking interim custody of their vehicles, it is for the 1[st]respondent to consider the same and pass orders thereon. Since Ext.P2 inthese writ petitions are still pending, the writ petitions are disposed ofdirecting that the 1[st] respondent shall consider Ext.P2 and pass ordersthereon.
This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 3
weeks of a production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of thiswrit petition.
Rp
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE