IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 15206 of 2009(U)
1. SALIH, S/O.ABDUL KHADER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
... Respondent
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.BABU S. NAIR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :03/06/2009
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J.
---------------------------
W.P.(C).15206, 15238, 15284,
15304 & 15313 of 2009
---------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2009
JUDGMENT
The vehicles belonging to petitioners in all
these cases were allegedly seized for infraction of the
provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Banks
(Protection and Regulation of removal of sand) Act,
2002. They have approached the District Collector, the
1st respondent for release of the vehicles and are
aggrieved by the non-consideration of their request as
such.
2. The nature of the power exercised by the
District Collector and the para meters within which such
power is to be exercised have been dealt with by a Bench
of this Court in Sanjayan Vs.Tahasildar [2007 (4) KLT
597]. Principles have been reiterated in Subramanian
Vs. State of Kerala [2009 (1) KLT 77).
3. In Subramanian’s case, this Court
observed that the power exercised by the District
W.P.(C).15206 of 2009 & Con.cases
:: 2 ::
Collector is under Section 23 of the Kerala Protection of
River Banks (Protection and Regulation of removal of
sand) Act, 2002. It is also, therefore, quasi judicial in
character. Reasons will have to be given by the District
Collector while passing orders under Section 23 of the
Kerala Protection of River Banks (Protection and
Regulation of removal of sand) Act, 2002 r/w Rules 27
and 28 of Kerala Protection of River Banks and
Regulation of Removal of Sand Rules 2002. If there is a
contention that the transportation of sand was
supported by a pass issued by the competent local
authority, that has to be referred. The materials which
are placed before the District Collector by the
subordinate officials shall also be looked into. This has
been indicated in Subramanian’s case. If motion is
made by the owners of the vehicles for release of the
vehicles on interim custody, it will be subject to the
conditions mentioned in paragraph 58 of the said
judgment. The District Collector may pass orders on
W.P.(C).15206 of 2009 & Con.cases
:: 3 ::
such applications for interim custody. (The scope of the
directions contained in Subramanian’s case have later
been dealt with in WPC No.14319/2009. Appropriate
clarifications have been issued in the latter judgment).
Further conditions can be imposed in the course of
release of the vehicles as indicated by this Court in
Shoukathali Vs. Tahasildar [2009 (1) KLT 640].
4. Keeping in mind the observations
made in the judgments in Shoukathali’s case and
Subramanian’s case and other judgment which have
been referred to, the 1st respondent in these cases shall
pass final orders in the matter of confiscation/release of
the vehicles in question after conducting an appropriate
enquiry as early as possible, at any rate within three
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
5. In the meanwhile, if motion is made by
the petitioners for interim custody of the vehicles, then
orders shall be passed by the District Collector on the
W.P.(C).15206 of 2009 & Con.cases
:: 4 ::
applications for interim custody of the vehicles, within
three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment in the light of the observations contained in
Shoukathali Vs. Tahasildar [2009 (1) KLT 640],
Subramanian Vs. State of Kerala [2009 (1) KLT 77) and
the judgment in WPC No.14319 of 2009.
The writ petitions are disposed of as above.
The petitioners shall produce copies of the judgment in
Subramanian, Shoukathali and W.P(C) No.14319 of 2009
along with the certified copy of this judgment before the
1st respondent, for compliance.
Sd/-
(V.GIRI)
Judge
sk/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge