DILEEP D Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is challenging Ext.P14 order passed by the second respondent pursuant to the direction given by this Court in Ext.P13 verdict passed in W.P(C)No.36477 of 2010.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by virtue of the impugned order, the petitioner has been mulcted with the liability to deposit 50% of the value of the vehicle , to have interim custody of the vehicle, that too subject to certain conditions, which according to the petitioner is not correct or sustainable under any circumstances. THEre is also a further grievance for the petitioner that he was not heard before passing Ext.P14 order.