The petitioner's vehicle has been seized by the 2nd respondent on 9.3.2009 on the allegation that the said vehicle has been used for transportation of river sand without any valid permit. The petitioner submitted Ext.P1 application before the 1st respondent to release the vehicle. As the vehicle has not been released, the petitioner approached this Court with a writ petition which was disposed of directing the respondents to consider and pass orders on Ext.P1 application within a time frame. Ext.P2 is the said judgment. 2. The petitioner alleges that without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without hearing him, the first respondent passed Ext.P3 order directing the petitioner to pay a sum of ₹1,40,000/- as fine. It is in this background, the petitioner approached this Court.
WP(C).18626/09 -:2:-
3. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the vehicle has been released to the petitioner on depositing a sum of ₹70,000/-. It is also submitted that the proceedings are now pending adjudication before the 1st respondent.
In the light of the aforesaid submission, the 1st respondent is directed to pass final orders in the matter after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. It shall be open to the petitioner to challenge the legality of the final orders passed by the 1st respondent in appropriate proceedings.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
krj Sd/-
A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE