High Court Kerala High Court

Dhaneesh P.P. vs The District Colelctor on 24 September, 2009

Kerala High Court
Dhaneesh P.P. vs The District Colelctor on 24 September, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 26920 of 2009(H)


1. DHANEESH P.P. S/O.O.DAMODHARAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE DISTRICT COLELCTOR, MALAPPURAM.
                       ...       Respondent

2. S.I.OF POLICE, KALPAKANCHERY,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

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

 Dated :24/09/2009

 O R D E R

P.N.RAVINDRAN,J.

—————————————-
W.P.(C) No.26920 of 2009 – H

—————————————-
Dated 24th September, 2009

Judgment

The petitioner is the owner of a goods vehicle bearing

registration No.KL-10-V/870 under an agreement of sale executed with

the registered owner. The said vehicle was seized by the second

respondent Sub Inspector of Police, Kalpakanchery and produced

before the District Collector, Malappuram on 21.8.2009 on the

allegation that it was used to transport river sand without a valid pass.

The grievance voiced by the petitioner is that till date notwithstanding

his repeated requests, the District Collector has not released the

vehicle to him by way of interim custody. In this writ petition, the

petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the

respondents to release the vehicle seized from him by way of interim

custody.

2. A learned Single Judge of this Court has in Subramanian v.

State of Kerala (2009 (1) KLT 77), while upholding the 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. In my opinion, in the light of the decision of this

W.P.(C) No.26920/2009 -:2:-

Court in Subramanian v. State of Kerala (2009 (1) KLT 77), the

District Collector has to consider the request made by the petitioner

for interim custody of the vehicle and pass orders thereon. I

accordingly dispose of the writ petition with the following directions:

(1) The District Collector, Malappuram shall consider the request

made by the petitioner for interim custody of his vehicle expeditiously

and, in any event, within ten days from the date on which the

petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment before the District

Collector and makes a request in writing seeking interim custody of his

vehicle; and

(2) The District Collector, Malappuram shall pass final orders in

the matter pending before him expeditiously and, in any event, within

three months from today after affording the petitioner a reasonable

opportunity of being heard. The petitioner’s contentions on the merits

are kept open.

P.N.RAVINDRAN
Judge

vaa