IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 17348 of 2009(K)
1. JOY JOSEPH, S/O . JOSEPH, AGED 38 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM,
... 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 :23/06/2009
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J
-------------------
W.P.(C).17348/2009
--------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2009
JUDGMENT
The vehicle bearing registration No.KL-7Q-3978,
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 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
W.P.(C).17348/09
2
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, 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
W.P.(C).17348/09
3
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 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
W.P.(C).17348/09
4
orders shall be passed by the District Collector on the
application for interim custody of the vehicle, 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) 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 belonging
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.
W.P.(C).17348/09
5
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