JUDGMENT P. SHANMUGAM, J. – In all these original petitions, petitioners seek for a direction to the respondents prohibiting them from detaining transport of timber. Their allegation is that the cheek-post authorities are unnecessarily detaining the movement of timber without any reason. 2. On behalf of the respondents, a statement has been filed wherein it is stated that the documents prescribed by the Act as per section 29(2) are either a bill of sale or delivery note or way bill or certificate of ownership and a declaration. Rule 35(13) (b) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963 stipulates that the delivery note shall be in form 26 and certificate of ownership in form 27A. It is further stipulated that the delivery note shall be deemed to be a way bill. Rule 35(13) (c) stipulates that the declaration shall be in form 27B. So any transport from Kerala to outside the State ought to be supported by a sale bill or a form 26 delivery note or a form 27A certificate and form 27B declaration. It is further stated that if the transporters are not furnishing these documents, the cheek-post officials used to detain the consignment under section 29A (2) of the Act. It is stated that actually the lack of prescribed document in such cases is only a technical deficiency and may not constitute evasion of tax for the reason that tax is being collected by the Forest Department. They have no intention to detain any of the vehicles of the petitioners, provided the available documents should show that the tax due has been paid. 3. In the light of the clear stand on behalf of the respondents, I am of the view that the apprehension of the petitioner is unfounded. Original petitions are filed only on the contemplated action by the department. 4. In Cleetus Vincent v. Sales Tax Inspector, Sales Tax Check-post, Athicode [1994] 95 STC 330 (Ker), a similar case, held as follows : "It is true that the cheek-post officer acting under section 29A did the right thing in insisting on production of a declaration in form 27A but then it is pointed out as evident from exhibits P1 and P2 that the goods in question had been purchased from the Depot Range Officer at Vettoor and were being transported by the petitioner himself who had purchased them. The mere fact that the petitioner who is transporting the goods to Tamil Nadu was not a registered dealer is not relevant nor sufficient to infer an attempt at evasion of tax which is so essential to sustain a detention under section 29A. Since that ingredient is absent and having regard to the documents produced in this case the notice, exhibit P4, and the detention have to be quashed." 5. So long as the petitioners furnish documents issued by Forest Department evidencing payment of sales tax, sale bill or delivery note or form 27A certificate of ownership, the movement of timber cannot be prevented. 6. As the original petitions are filed only on an apprehension or contemplated action, no orders are needed except recording the stand of the Government and the legal position. The original petitions are disposed of accordingly. Order on C.M.P. No. 12631 of 1995 in O.P. No. 7178 of 1995-D dismissed. Petitions disposed of accordingly.