IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 16571 of 2009(N)
1. SURESH.K,S/O.VELAYUDHAN,SUKAPURAM,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,MALAPPURAM.
... Respondent
2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,EZHUVANTHURUTHY
For Petitioner :SRI.BABU S. NAIR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :16/06/2009
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J
-------------------
W.P.(C).16571/2009
--------------------
Dated this the 16th day of June, 2009
JUDGMENT
The vehicle bearing registration No.KL-
12B/4539, belonging to petitioner was allegedly
seized for infraction of the provisions of the Kerala
Protection of River Banks (Protection and
Regulation of removal of sand) Act, 2002. He has
approached the District Collector, the 1st
respondent for release of the vehicle and is
aggrieved by the non-consideration of the request.
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
W.P.(C).16571/2009
2
that the power exercised by the District 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 vehicle for release of the vehicle on
interim custody, it will be subject to the conditions
mentioned in paragraph 58 of the said judgment.
W.P.(C).16571/2009
3
The District Collector may pass orders on such
applications for interim custody. (The scope of the
directions contained in Subramanian’s case have
later been dealt with in Sareesh v. District
Collector (2009 (2) KLT 906). Appropriate
clarifications have been issued in the latter
judgment). Further conditions can be imposed in
the course of release of the vehicle 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 shall pass
final orders in the matter of confiscation/release of
the vehicle 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.
W.P.(C).16571/2009
4
5. In the meanwhile, if motion is made by the
petitioner for interim custody of the vehicle, then
orders shall be passed by the District Collector on
the application for interim custody of the vehicle,
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 Sareesh v. District
Collector (2009 (2) KLT 906).
6. I make it clear that I have not considered the
petitioner’s contentions on merits. It is upto the
District Collector to consider whether the vehicle is
to be released on interim custody or not. It is also
upto the District Collector to consider, in accordance
with law, the question as to whether the vehicle
belonging to the petitioner has been used in a
manner as to contravene the provisions of the Act
W.P.(C).16571/2009
5
and the Rules framed thereunder and as to whether
the vehicle is liable for confiscation and pass final
orders on that basis.
The writ petition is disposed of as above. The
petitioner shall produce copies of the judgment in
Subramanian, Shoukathali and Sareesh along
with the certified copy of this judgment before the
1st respondent, for compliance.
V.GIRI,
Judge
mrcs