Girija Mohan vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 11136 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

   WEDNESDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1943

                        WP(C).No.5906 OF 2021(K)


PETITIONER/S:

                GIRIJA MOHAN
                AGED 48 YEARS, W/O. LATE MOHANAN, KRISHNA BHAVAN,
                MELEDATH, PANTHAPPILLY, ALANGAD P.O., KARUMALLOOR,
                PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,PIN-683 511

                BY ADVS.
                SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN
                SRI.K.A.ABHILASH
                SRI.N.R.SANGEETHARAJ
                SRI.VINOD S. PILLAI
                SMT.SREELAKSHMI R.
                SHRI.MOHAMMED THAYIB N.M.

RESPONDENT/S:

      1         STATE OF KERALA
                REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO HOME, HOME
                DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, PALAYAM P.O.,
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-695 001

      2         THE DRUG DISPOSAL COMMITTEE,
                OFFICE OF DRUG DISPOSAL COMMITTEE, DISTRICT POLICE
                CHIEF, ERNAKULAM RURAL, SH 16,OPP POWER HOUSE, ALUVA
                P.O., PIN-683 101

      3         THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
                OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, DISTRICT POLICE
                CHIEF, ERNAKULAM RURAL, SH 16,OPP POWER HOUSE, ALUVA
                P.O., PIN-683 101

      4         THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
                CHENGAMANAD POLICE STATION, CHENGAMANAD, P.O.,
                ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,PIN-683 578

                SMT. M. K. PUSHPALATHA, SR.PP

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD            ON
07.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.5906 OF 2021(K)

                             2




                       JUDGMENT

The petitioner claims to be the owner of vehicle

bearing registration No.KL-40/E-3008 involved in

Crime No.489/2020 of Chengamanad Police Station

registered for the offence punishable under Section

20(b)(ii)A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances Act, 1985 (for short "the NDPS Act"). The

petitioner filed a representation before the second

respondent for the interim release of the above said

vehicle. The second respondent as per Ext.P4 order

decided to sell the vehicle in auction, against which

this writ petition has been filed. WP(C).No.5906 OF 2021(K)

2. Heard.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has

submitted that no reason was stated by the second

respondent for passing Ext.P4 order and hence Ext.P4

order cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel for

the petitioner has further submitted that even though

the petitioner had raised so many contentions before

the second respondent at the time of hearing, the said

contentions were not considered by the second

respondent before passing Ext.P4 order.

4. It appears that Ext.P4 order does not mention

any reason for passing the said order. This Court in

Smart Logistics (M/s.) Kozhikode v. State of Kerala and

others [2020 (5) KHC 139] held that the owner of the

vehicle shall be at liberty to make representation WP(C).No.5906 OF 2021(K)

before the Drug Disposal Committee raising his claim

over the vehicle, which was seized under the

provisions of the NDPS Act. The court further held in

Smart Logistics (supra) that if any such representation

is made by the owner of the vehicle, the Drug Disposal

Committee, before taking a decision on the disposal of

the vehicle, shall grant an opportunity of hearing to the

owner of the vehicle.

5. In this case, even though Ext.P4 order was

passed by the second respondent after hearing the

petitioner, no reason was stated by the second

respondent for passing the said order. Since the

contentions of the petitioner were not considered by

the second respondent before passing Ext.P4 order, the

said order cannot be sustained. Consequently, I set WP(C).No.5906 OF 2021(K)

aside the same and direct the second respondent to

pass order afresh on the representation made by the

petitioner, in accordance with law, affording

reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as

expeditiously as possible and at any rate within two

months from the date of receipt/production of a copy

of this judgment.

Needless to state that the second respondent shall

consider all the contentions, which may be raised by the

petitioner at the time of hearing, before disposing of the

above said representation. The petitioner shall also be at

liberty to submit additional representation, if any, if so

advised. A copy of the order passed on the representation

shall be communicated to the petitioner by the second

respondent and until such communication is made, the WP(C).No.5906 OF 2021(K)

vehicle shall not be disposed of .

This Writ Petition stands disposed of as above.

Sd/-

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR JUDGE RK/07.04.2021 WP(C).No.5906 OF 2021(K)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.489/2020 OF CHENGAMANAD POLICE STATION DATED 28.06.2020

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (ALUVA RURAL) DATED 28.12.2020

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 29.01.2021

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 12.02.2021

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:NIL