JUDGMENT : This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the registered owner of a vehicle bearing Registration No.KL-65-F-3366. 2. According to the petitioner, he purchased the car from Mr. Muhammed Shameem and the latter at the time of purchase had told that the vehicle is in good condition. But after purchase, some defects were noticed and he had informed the seller. Accordingly, it was taken by Mr. Muhammed Shameem from his custody for repair work. In the midst it was used by him for his own purpose and the Excise Officials seized it for transportation of Ganja. Mr. Muhammed Shameem was made an accused in Crime No.148/2019 registered for the offences punishable under Section 8(c) r/w Section 20(b)(ii)(A), 22(a) and 43(a) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act'). The petitioner came to know about the seizure of the vehicle by Excise Officials later and when enquired, Mr. Muhammed Shameem promised him that the vehicle would be handed over soon. 3. The final report in the case is now filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Mananthavady and numbered as ST No.1687/2019 and the accused was summoned. In the trial held, Mr. Muhammed Shameem and other accused were found guilty and convicted and sentenced for fine of Rs.10,000/- each under Section 8(c) r/w Section 20(b)(ii)(A) and Section 22(a) of NDPS Act. In default of payment of fine, each of them were directed to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that at the time of passing of the above judgment, the Magistrate failed to pass an order on liability of the vehicle for confiscation. According to him, the vehicle is now with the Drug Disposal Committee for disposal as contemplated under Section 52 A of the NDPS Act. He filed an application before the Drug Disposal Committee for getting the vehicle released in his custody. But by an order passed on 30.10.2020, the copy of which is produced alongwith the Writ Petition as Ext.P5, the Committee declined his prayer. 5. According to the learned counsel eventhough Section 52A was brought into the NDPS Act by way of amendment, Section 60 was retained in the Act and therefore, the registered owner has every right to proceed under Sub-section (3) of Section 60 of the Act. 5. According to the learned counsel eventhough Section 52A was brought into the NDPS Act by way of amendment, Section 60 was retained in the Act and therefore, the registered owner has every right to proceed under Sub-section (3) of Section 60 of the Act. According to him, the said right of the registered owner ought to have been considered by the trial court and an order ought to have been passed after summoning him and granting reasonable opportunity of being heard to him. 6. Since he was not heard, the writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs; i. To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction and to quash Ext.P5; ii. To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction and to declare that the 2nd respondent is not entitled to dispose of the petitioner's vehicle bearing Registration No.KL-65-F-3366 in the absence of a declaration by the competent court that the vehicle is liable to be confiscated in connection with the proceedings in S.T.1687/19 of the Honourable Judicial First-Class Magistrate Court-II, Manathavady; iii. To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to consider Exhibit P4 representation afresh after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and to keep in abeyance all further proceedings for disposal of the vehicle till such time; iv. To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents 2 to 4 to release the vehicle bearing Registration No.KL-65-F-3366 to the petitioner forthwith; v. Grant such other reliefs as may be prayed for and as the court may deem fit to grant and 7. Though it is submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner has preferred an application before the Drug Disposal Committee, it is revealed from Ext.P5 that the application infact was preferred before the Deputy Excise Commissioner, Wayanad and Ext.P5 order was passed by him. A perusal of the said order would reveal that the vehicle was not produced before the Drug Disposal Committee as the proceedings for that before the Court is not yet over. A perusal of the said order would reveal that the vehicle was not produced before the Drug Disposal Committee as the proceedings for that before the Court is not yet over. It is further stated that the Drug Disposal Committee has no authority to order for release of the vehicle in favour of the registered owner, call for tender and conduct auction sale of the vehicle. From Ext.P5 this Court is also convinced that proceedings have not been initiated for disposal of the vehicle. 8. The judgment passed by the trial court in ST No. 1687/2019 is silent on what is to be done with the vehicle. It is noticed that the vehicle is in the custody of Deputy Excise Commissioner, Wayanad who is the third respondent. Under Section 60 NDPS Act, the petitioner being the registered owner has got a right to be heard by the court prior to passing of any order for disposal of the vehicle. The petitioner can project any of the grounds enumerated under Sub-section (3) of Section 60 of NDPS Act before the trial court for which notice must be issued to him. 9. Section 52A provides for disposal of the vehicle used for transportation of Ganja. The stand of the 3rd respondent was that proceedings for disposal has not been initiated. There is not even a case for the respondent that an order for confiscation has been passed under Sub-Section (3) of Section 60 of NDPS Act. It is pertinent to note that the trial court failed to say in the judgment in ST.No.1687/2019 about the liability of the vehicle either for confiscation or disposal. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 3rd respondent to file appropriate application before the trial court and in that event the trial court shall grant him reasonable opportunity of being heard and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.