Parambil Siraj vs The Tahsildar on 14 August, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA No. 1769 of 2007()


1. PARAMBIL SIRAJ,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE TAHSILDAR, TIRUR.
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.S.MANILAL

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

 Dated :14/08/2007

 O R D E R
                       H.L. DATTU, C.J. & K.T. SANKARAN, J.
              ...................................................................................
                                   W.A. No. 1769 OF 2007
              ...................................................................................
                            Dated this the 14th August , 2007

                                          J U D G M E N T

H.L. Dattu, C.J.:

This appeal is directed against the interim order passed by this Court in

W.P.(C)No. 15616 of 2007 dated 24th May, 2007.

2. The petitioner is the owner of a vehicle bearing registration No. KL.

8T.6532. The vehicle was seized by the respondents for the alleged

contravention of the provisions of the Kerala River Bank Protection and Sand

Mining Regulation Act, 2001 read with the Kerala River Bank Protection and

Regulation of Sand Mining Rules, 2002. Aggrieved by the said action of the

respondents, the appellant/petitioner was before this Court in the aforesaid

Writ Petition, inter alia seeking a writ in the nature of a certiorari to quash the

order of seizure and also a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to

release the vehicle which is in the custody of the respondents.

3. The learned single Judge, after taking into consideration the fact

that the petitioner has no other means, except using his vehicle for the

purpose of doing business, has thought it fit to release the vehicle on certain

conditions. The conditions imposed by the learned single Judge are that the

petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs. 25,000/- and shall furnish bank guarantee

for the balance amount, as demanded by Ext. P4 order of the second

respondent herein. The interim order so passed by the learned single Judge is

the subject matter of this Writ Appeal.

4. Shri .C.S. Manilal, learned counsel for the appellant would

vehemently contended before this court that the interim order passed by the

W.A. No. 1769 OF 2007

2

learned single Judge is contrary to the statutory provisions and therefore it is

requested that, this court should interfere with the said interim order so

passed by the learned single Judge. It is also requested that a direction may

be issued to the respondents to release the vehicle by accepting a sum of Rs.

25,000/- only. Alternatively, it is contended that the learned single Judge is

not justified in directing the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee for the

balance amount , as demanded by Ext. P4 order.

5.. None of the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the

appellant/petitioner, in our opinion, has any merit whatsoever. The court, as

we have already stated, by taking a sympathetic view, has directed the

respondents to release the vehicle on certain conditions and those conditions

cannot be characterised either as arbitrary or perverse or in contravention of

the Act and the Rules referred to above.

6. In that view of the matter, we decline to entertain this Writ Appeal.

Accordingly, the Writ Appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected.

Ordered accordingly.

H.L. DATTU,
CHIEF JUSTICE.

K.T. SANKARAN,
JUDGE.

lk