IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 21951 of 2009(L)
1. ABDUL RAHMAN, S/O.AVARANKUTTI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR.
... 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 :12/08/2009
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J
-------------------
W.P.(C).21951/2009
--------------------
Dated this the 12th day of August, 2009
JUDGMENT
The petitioner claims to be the registered owner of a
vehicle bearing registration No.KL-11-E-3459, which was
allegedly seized for infraction of the provisions of the Kerala
Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of
sand Act, 2001. He has approached the District Collector,
the 1st respondent for release of the vehicle and is
aggrieved by the non-consideration of the request.
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,
W.P.(C).21951/2009
2
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 for interim custody. (The scope of the
directions contained in Subramanian’s case have later
been dealt with in Sareesh v. District Collector (2009
(2) KLT 906). Appropriate clarifications have been
issued in the latter judgment). Further conditions can be
imposed in the course of release of the vehicle as indicated
W.P.(C).21951/2009
3
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, after notice to the registered
owner of the vehicle and after hearing him as well, 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)
W.P.(C).21951/2009
4
and Sareesh v. District Collector (2009 (2) KLT
906).
6. I make it clear that I have not considered the
petitioner’s contentions on merits. It is upto the District
Collector to consider whether the vehicle is to be released
on interim custody or not. It is also upto the District
Collector to consider, in accordance with law, the question
as to whether the vehicle in question 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 1st respondent, for
compliance.
V.GIRI,
Judge
mrcs