IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 18631 of 2009(Y)
1. LIBEESH.K.K., S/O.KRISHNAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD.
For Petitioner :SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :22/07/2009
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J.
-------------------------
W.P ( C) No.18631 of 2009
--------------------------
Dated this the 22nd July, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner claims to be the purchaser of the vehicle bearing
Reg.No.KL-7-P. 9158 which 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 (Protection and Regulation
of removal of sand) Act, 2002. It is also, therefore, quasi judicial
W.P ( C) No.18631 of 2009
2
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 Sareesh Vs.
District Collector [2009(2) KLT 906]. Appropriate clarifications
have been issued in the latter case). 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].
W.P ( C) No.18631 of 2009
3
4. Keeping in mind the observations made in the
judgments in Shoukathali’s case and Subramanian’s case and
Sareesh’s case which have been referred to, the 2nd 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 bearing Reg. KL-7-P. 9158 then
orders shall be passed by the District Collector on the
application for interim custody of the vehicle after notice to the
registered owner and after hearing him, within four 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 Vs. District Collector [2009(2) KLT 906].
6. I make it clear that I have not considered the
petitioner’s contentions on merits. It is up to the District
Collector to consider whether the vehicle is to be released on
interim custody or not. It is also up to the District Collector to
W.P ( C) No.18631 of 2009
4
consider, in accordance with law, the question as to whether the
vehicle has been used in a manner as to contravene the
provisions of the Act 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 2nd respondent, for compliance.
(V.GIRI,JUDGE)
app/-