IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 18607 of 2009(U)
1. KAMALAM
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE TAHSILDAR, PERINTHALMANNA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.ESM.KABEER
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :03/07/2009
O R D E R
V.GIRI,J.
-------------------------
W.P ( C) No. 18607 of 2009
--------------------------
Dated this the 3rd July,2009
J U D G M E N T
The vehicle bearing Reg.KL-10U-7268 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
W.P ( C) No. 18607 of 2009
2
(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 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
W.P ( C) No. 18607 of 2009
3
clarifications have been issued in the latter case). 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 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
KL-10U-7268 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
W.P ( C) No. 18607 of 2009
4
Sareesh Vs. District Collector [2009(2) KLT 906].
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. 18607 of 2009
5
W.P ( C) No. 18607 of 2009
6
(V.GIRI,JUDGE)
ma
W.P ( C) No. 18607 of 2009
7
W.P ( C) No. 18607 of 2009
8
(V.GIRI,JUDGE)
ma
W.P ( C) No. 18607 of 2009
9
W.P ( C) No. 18607 of 2009
10