IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 15744 of 2009(K)
1. MUHAMMED KUTTI ABDUL GAFOOR,AGED 35,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT
... Respondent
2. R.D.O,TALUK OFFICE,PERUNTHALMANNA.
For Petitioner :SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :08/06/2009
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J
-------------------
W.P.(C).15744/2009
--------------------
Dated this the 8th day of June, 2009
JUDGMENT
The vehicle 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 for release of the
vehicle and is aggrieved by the non-consideration
of Ext.P1 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
that the power exercised by the District Collector is
W.P.(C).15744/09
2
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 such
W.P.(C).15744/09
3
applications for interim custody. (The scope of the
directions contained in Subramanian’s case have
later been dealt with in WPC No.14319/2009.
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
W.P.(C).15744/09
4
petitioner for interim custody of the vehicle, then
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 the judgment in WPC
No.14319 of 2009.
The writ petition is disposed of as above. The
petitioner shall produce copies of the judgment in
Subramanian, Shoukathali and W.P (C ) No.14319
of 2009 along with the certified copy of this
judgment before the District Collector, for
compliance.
V.GIRI,
Judge
mrcs