IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 536 of 2010()
1. K.M.ABDUL AZEEZ, S/O. MUHAMMED,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
... Respondent
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.BABU S. NAIR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.J.CHELAMESWAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
Dated :23/03/2010
O R D E R
J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Raman, J.
------------------------------------------
W.A. Nos.536, 538, 539, 540 & 541 of 2010
------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2010
JUDGMENT
J.Chelameswar, C.J.
All these writ appeals are preferred against the various
judgments passed in different writ petitions. The question
involved in all those writ petitions is common. Each of the
appellants happens to be the owners of goods vehicles registered in
the State of Kerala. On the allegation that these vehicles were
found plying in violation of some of the provisions of the Kerala
Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand
Act, 2001, each of these vehicles were seized and appropriate
proceedings under the abovementioned Act are initiated. Under
Section 23 of the abovementioned Act, the said vehicles are even
liable for confiscation in an appropriate case.
W.A.No.536 of 2010, etc.
– 2 –
2. In view of the pendency of the proceedings against
each one of the vehicles, the owners of the vehicles approached
the concerned District Collector for interim release of the vehicle
so seized and in each of these cases, interim release of the vehicle
was ordered by the District Collector subject to the condition that
the owners should deposit certain amount. For example, in the
context of W.A.No.536 of 2010, the condition was that the owner
should deposit an amount of Rs.80,000/-.
3. Aggrieved by the condition so imposed and pleading
that this is an onerous condition, each of the appellants approached
this Court by filing different writ petitions. A learned Judge of
this Court declined to interfere with the condition so imposed and
hence the present appeals.
4. Heard Sri.Babu S.Nair, learned counsel for the
appellants and Smt.K.Meera, learned Senior Government Pleader
W.A.No.536 of 2010, etc.
– 3 –
appearing for the respondents.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the
condition imposed by the District Collector with regard to the
deposit is an onerous condition and, therefore, the same is liable to
be relaxed.
6. We are unable to accept this submission.
Admittedly, the amount called upon to be deposited with reference
to each of the vehicles is certainly much less than the value of the
vehicle itself. As already indicated above, in an appropriate case,
the vehicle is even liable for confiscation and if so confiscated, the
owner would lose the entire value of the vehicle. In the
circumstances, calling upon the owners to deposit a part of the
value of the vehicle for interim release of the vehicle pending the
adjudication proceedings, in our view, cannot be termed as
imposition of an onerous condition.
W.A.No.536 of 2010, etc.
– 4 –
We do not see any reason to interfere with the
judgments under appeals. All these writ appeals are, therefore,
dismissed at the admission stage.
J.Chelameswar,
Chief Justice
P.R.Raman,
Judge
vns