Abdul Kareem vs The District Collector on 12 October, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 28622 of 2009(W)


1. ABDUL KAREEM, S/O. BEEKUTTY,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE S.I. OF POLICE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN

 Dated :12/10/2009

 O R D E R
                         P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
                   -----------------------------
                        W.P(C) No.28622 of 2009
                  ------------------------------
              Dated this the 12th day of October, 2009.

                              J U D G M E N T

Heard Sri.Jamsheed Hafiz, the learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner and Sri.P.N.Santhosh, the learned Government Pleader

appearing for the respondents .

2. The petitioner is the registered owner of a mini lorry bearing

registration No.KL-10-7311. The said vehicle was seized by the second

respondent, Sub Inspector of Police, on 1.10.2009, on the allegation that

it was used to transport river sand without a valid pass and produced

before the first respondent. The grievance voiced by the petitioner is

that notwithstanding repeated requests, till date the District Collector has

not released the vehicle to him. In this writ petition, the petitioner inter

alia seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the

respondents to release the vehicle to him.

3. A learned Single Judge of this Court has in Subramanian V.

State of Kerala (2009(1) KLT 77) while upholding the constitutional

validity of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal

of Sand Act, 2001 held that the District Collector has the power to direct

release of any vehicle which is seized and produced before him, by way

of interim custody. It is evident that the petitioner has not moved the

District Collector in writing seeking interim custody of his vehicle, I am of

the opinion that the petitioner ought to have moved the District Collector

in writing, seeking interim custody of his vehicle instead of seeking the

intervention of this Court. I accordingly dispose of this writ petition with

the following directions:

i) The District Collector, Malappuram shall in the event of the

petitioner filing an appropriate representation seeking interim custody,

release the vehicle to him by way of interim custody subject to such

terms and conditions as he may deem fit to impose.

ii) The District Collector shall pass final orders in the

proceedings initiated by him under the Kerala Protection of River Banks

and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 and the rules framed

thereunder within three months from such date after affording the

petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

Sd/-

P.N.RAVINDRAN
JUDGE

//True Copy//

PA TO JUDGE
ab