IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 16289 of 2009(E)
1. K.SUMAN SHAREEF, S/O. MOITHEEN KOYA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM DIST.
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.R.SUDHISH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :26/06/2009
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P. (C) No.16289 OF 2009
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 26th day of June, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is the registered owner of Mini Lorry
bearing Reg.NoKL-11/AA.390. According to the petitioner,
while river sand was transported, against the valid pass issued
by the Vazhakkad grama panchayath, the vehicle was seized
by the Tahsildar, Ernad on 18.03.2009 at 12.05 p.m.
Petitioner submits that the sand was loaded at Valiyathodi
Kadavu and it was taken to Chelambra, in Malappuram District.
The vehicle was plying through Edavannappara, Aikkarapady
and Ramanattukara Bye-pass to reach Chelambra which
according to the petitioner is the most convenient route. The
pass was issued at 11 am and the vehicle was seized at 12.05
pm on the same day. Petitioner challenged the seizure before
this court under the impression that the vehicle was seized
under the Kerala Antisocial Activities (Prevention) Act. Ext.P2
interim order was passed on3.4.2009 directing the vehicle
to be released on condition that Rs. 25,000/- is deposited.
WPC.No.16289 OF 2009
: 2 :
According to the petitioner, though he approached the
respondents for release of the vehicle on interim custody, it
was not done. But the first respondent proceeded to pass final
order, finding that there was illegal transportation of land.
This order, Ext.P4 is challenged in this writ petition.
2. Pursuant to notice on admission being issued and as
directed by this court, the files leading to Ext.P4 has been
produced before me. I have gone through the same.
3. Prime reason stated in Ext.P4 by the District
Collector to order confiscation is that in spite of registered
notice having been issued to the owner of vehicle, requiring
him to appear for hearing on 13.4.2009, he did not turn up.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that
the petitioner had actually appeared before the District
Collector pursuant to Ext.P2 interim order passed on 3.4.2009,
along with Ext.P3 copy of a bond, to secure release of vehicle
on interim custody. This was done on 13.4.2009. He was not
aware of a separate hearing proposed to be conducted on the
same date.
WPC.No.16289 OF 2009
: 3 :
5. There is substance in the contention and I find no
reason not to accept the explanation submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioner. On perusal of the files, I find that
the petitioner had approached the District Collector on
18.3.2009 itself with a detailed petition seeking release of the
vehicle. The petition was presented through an Advocate.
There does not seem to be any deliberate negligence on the
part of the petitioner.
6. Petitioner submits that the transportation was
supported by a pass issued on the same date. If this fact is
correct, and there are no other materials which shows that
the pass has been misused, it may not be possible to say that
the transportation of sand was unauthorized. But I refrain
from expressing any final opinion on the contention raised by
the counsel for petitioner in this regard. I am satisfied that the
matter requires reconsideration by the District Collector.
7. Accordingly Ext.P4 order is set aside, and the
District collector is directed to pass fresh orders in the matter
of seizure/ release of the petitioner’s vehicle bearing Reg.
WPC.No.16289 OF 2009
: 4 :
NoKL-11/AA.390 under sec.23 of the Sand Act read with Rule
27 and 28 of the Rules, within three weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner shall be heard in
person or through authorized representative before such
orders are passed.
(V.GIRI, JUDGE)
jma