Loading...

Febin K.A @ Kannan vs The District Collector on 27 August, 2009

Kerala High Court
Febin K.A @ Kannan vs The District Collector on 27 August, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 24703 of 2009(G)


1. FEBIN K.A @ KANNAN, S/O.ARAVINDAKSHAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
                       ...       Respondent

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI

 Dated :27/08/2009

 O R D E R
                            V.GIRI,J.
                      -------------------------
                  W.P ( C) No.24703 of 2009
                     --------------------------
              Dated this the 27th August,2009

                       J U D G M E N T

The vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-9-T/7117 belonging

to petitioner 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.

W.P ( C) No.24703 of 2009
2

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 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

W.P ( C) No.24703 of 2009
3

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 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.No.KL-9-T/7117 then orders shall be passed by the

District Collector on the application for interim custody of

the vehicle, 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].

W.P ( C) No.24703 of 2009
4

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 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)
ma

W.P ( C) No.24703 of 2009
5

W.P ( C) No.24703 of 2009
6

(V.GIRI,JUDGE)
ma

W.P ( C) No.24703 of 2009
7

W.P ( C) No.24703 of 2009
8

(V.GIRI,JUDG
E)
ma

W.P ( C) No.24703 of 2009
9

W.P ( C) No.24703 of 2009
10

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information