IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 15069 of 2009(C)
1. KRISHNAKUMAR.R., 32 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
... Respondent
2. SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :02/06/2009
O R D E R
V.GIRI,J.
-------------------------
W.P ( C) No. 15069 of 2009
--------------------------
Dated this the 2nd June,2009
J U D G M E N T
The vehicle belonging to the 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 his request as such.
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
that the power exercised by the District Collector is
under Section 23 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks
W.P ( C) No. 15069 of 2009
2
(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 owner 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. The
District Collector may pass orders on such applications on
interim custody. (The scope of the directions contained in
Subramanian’s case have later been dealt with in WPC
No.14319/2009. Appropriate clarifications have been
W.P ( C) No. 15069 of 2009
3
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.
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 the judgment in WPC No.14319 of 2009.
W.P ( C) No. 15069 of 2009
4
The writ petition is disposed of as above. The
petitioner shall produce copies of the judgment in
Subramanian, Shoukathali and W.P (C) No.14319 of 2009
along with the certified copy of this judgment before the 1st
respondent, for compliance.
(V.GIRI,JUDGE)
ma
W.P ( C) No. 15069 of 2009
5
W.P ( C) No. 15069 of 2009
6