IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 2816 of 2011(B)
1. RAJASEGHARA KURUP, S/O.RAMAKRISHNA KURUP
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ADOOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.SAKIR.K.H.
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :28/01/2011
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-------------------------
W.P (C) No.2816 of 2011
--------------------------
Dated this the 28th January, 2011
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner claims to be the owner of four canoes
bearing registration Nos.5308 KQN, 5608 KQN, 5763
KQN and 5764 KQN. It is stated that the canoes were
seized by the 1st respondent on the allegation that the
same were used in violation of the provisions contained in
Kerala Protection of River Banks (Protection and
Regulation of removal of sand) Act, 2002. According to the
petitioner, the 1st respondent ought to have released the
canoes. But however, the canoes have not been released.
It is in these circumstances, the writ petition has been
filed.
2. Evidently, canoes have been seized on the
allegation that the same were used in violation of the
principles contained in the Kerala Protection of River
Banks (Protection and Regulation of removal of sand) Act,
2002. Such proceedings should pending before the 2nd
respondent, the authority competent under the Act.
Therefore, if the petitioner want either interim custody of
W.P (C) No.2816 of 2011
2
the canoes or finalisation of the proceedings, petitioner
would have to approach the 2nd respondent and seek
appropriate reliefs.
3. In that view of the matter, leaving it open to the
petitioner to approach the 2nd respondent for finalisation
of the proceedings and for interim custody thereof, it is
directed that orders will be passed applying the principles
laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in Shan C.T. v.
State of Kerala [2010(3)KHC 333]
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
ma
/True copy/
P.A to Judge