Stephen Rodrigues vs Station House Officer Parappanangadi Police Station, Parappanangadi P.O, Malappuram District., Pin 676319

N.Nagaresh, J

The petitioners, who are father and son, are owners of vehicles bearing Registration Nos. KL-45T-9400 and KL-45U-4954 respectively. The vehicles were seized on 28.07.2022 by the 1st respondent-Station House Officer, alleging that the vehicles were illegally transporting granite stones from granite crusher without having valid passes.

The petitioners state that the petitioners are holding valid Electronic Mineral Transit Passes issued by the Geologist on the date of seizure. The continued seizure of the vehicles is therefore illegal and unwarranted.

Though the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted Exts.P7 and P8 representations before the 2nd respondent pointing out this fact, no steps have been taken to release the vehicles. The continued detention of the vehicles would damage the vehicles and put the petitioners to untold difficulties.

The Government Pleader entered appearance and resisted the writ petition. The Government Pleader controverted all material allegations made by the petitioners in the writ petition. It is pointed out that when the vehicles were seized, the drivers did not show any Mineral Transit Passes. It was in such circumstances that in the absence of necessary permissions, the vehicles were seized.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents.

Exts.P5 and P6 Seizure Mahazars would show that the vehicles were seized on 28.07.2022 at 11.00 a.m. The reason for seizure as indicated in the Mahazars is that the vehicles did not carry necessary Mineral Transit Passes. Exts.P3 and P4 Electronic Mineral Transit Passes issued by the Geologist would indicate that the Passes were generated at 10.19 a.m and 10.23 a.m respectively on 28.07.2022. As the vehicles had valid Mineral Transit Passes as discernible from Exts.P3 and P4, this Court is of the view that the detention of the vehicles is unwarranted.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to release the vehicles of the petitioners forthwith, after obtaining an undertaking from the petitioner that the vehicles will not be alienated pending the proceedings and will be produced as and when required by the 2nd respondent.