IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 17574 of 2009(N)
1. BASHEER C.S., S/O. SAIDHUKUNJU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
... Respondent
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :24/06/2009
O R D E R
V.GIRI,J.
-------------------------
W.P ( C) Nos.17574 & 17575 of 2009
--------------------------
Dated this the 24th June,2009
J U D G M E N T
The vehicle belonging to petitioners bearing
Reg.Nos.KL-7-BC-1668 and KL-7-BF-3842 in these cases
were allegedly seized for infraction of the provisions of
the Kerala Protection of River Banks (Protection and
Regulation of removal of sand) Act, 2002. They have
approached the District Collector, the 1st respondent for
release of the vehicle and are aggrieved by the non-
consideration of their 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
W.P ( C) Nos.17574 & 17575 of 2009
2
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. 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
W.P ( C) Nos.17574 & 17575 of 2009
3
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].
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 1st
respondent in these cases 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
petitioners for interim custody of the vehicles bearing
Reg.Nos.KL-7-BC-1668 and KL-7-BF-3842, then orders
shall be passed by the District Collector on the applications
for interim custody of the vehicles, within three weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment in the
light of the observations contained in Shoukathali Vs.
W.P ( C) Nos.17574 & 17575 of 2009
4
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 consider, in accordance with law, the question
as to whether the vehicle belong to the petitioner 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 petitions are disposed of as above. The
petitioners 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)
ma
W.P ( C) Nos.17574 & 17575 of 2009
5
W.P ( C) Nos.17574 & 17575 of 2009
6
(V.GIRI,JUDGE)
ma
W.P ( C) Nos.17574 & 17575 of 2009
7
W.P ( C) Nos.17574 & 17575 of 2009
8