IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 13279 of 2009(D)
1. SHAJI.K.K., S/O. MAMMI HAJI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPURAM.
... Respondent
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUTTIPURAM
3. THE SECRETARY, THAVANOOR, GRAMA
For Petitioner :SRI.BABU S. NAIR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :21/05/2009
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J.
————————————————-
Writ Petition (C) No.13279 of 2009-D
————————————————-
Dated 21st May 2009
Judgment
The petitioner is the registered owner of a vehicle which
was seized by the second respondent while loading sand. He
contends, the seizure is illegal as the transportation of sand was
authorised by a pass issued by the third respondent. A crime has
been registered under the provisions of the Kerala Protection of
River banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. Though
the petitioner moved the learned Magistrate for release of the
vehicle, the same has been rejected by Ext.P5.
2. It is the District Collector who acts in the matter of release of
vehicles which are seized as per the provisions of the Sand Act. The
parameter of the power exercised by the District Collector, has been
considered by this court in Alavi v. District Collector (2007(4) KLT
473) and Moosakoya v. State of Kerala (2008(1) KLT 538).
This court again in Subramanian v. State of Kerala (2009
(1) KLT 77), following the decisions of this court, held
that it is open to the District Collector to pass orders regarding
WPC 13279/09 -2-
release of the vehicles. Such a power has been held to be quasi-
judicial in character. The District Collector is to pass orders on the
applications for release of the vehicles on interim custody subject to
conditions. The Writ Petition is disposed of directing the District
Collector to deal with the petitioner’s request for release of the
vehicle in the light of the directions issued in Subramanian v. State
of Kerala (supra). If the District Collector feels that a detailed
enquiry has to be conducted, then, he shall pass orders in the matter
of release of the vehicle on interim custody subject to the conditions
as mentioned in the aforementioned decision within two weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I make it clear that it is
up to the District Collector to consider the request for release of the
vehicle. I further make it clear that this court has not expressed any
opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s claim.
V.GIRI,JUDGE
sta