IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 14579 of 2010(V)
1. MUNEER KOORIMANNIL, S/O. YOUSEFF
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,MALAPPURAM.
... Respondent
2. THE TAHSILDAR, ERNAD.
3. THE SECRETARY, NAKKAYAM GRAMA
For Petitioner :SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :19/05/2010
O R D E R
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C)No. 14579 of 2010
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 19th day of May, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner’s vehicle has been seized on allegations of
illegal transportation of river sand under the Kerala
Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of
Sand Act, 2001. Petitioner approached this court by filing
W.P.(C) No.3070/2010, in which this court passed an
interim order on 30.01.2010 as follows:
Admit. Urgent notice. There will be a direction to the
1st respondent to release the vehicle if the petitioner remits an
amount of Rs.45,000/- (Rupees forty five thousand only) and on
execution of bond furnishing security for the balance amount to
the satisfaction of the 1st respondent. He shall further undertake
to produce the vehicle as and when directed and also not to
transfer/alienate the vehicle pending the proceedings. It shall
also be undertaken by the registered owner that he will not
cause any damage to the vehicle so as to reduce its value and
utility. If the vehicle gets involved in a similar offence after such
release, it shall be liable to immediate seizure, in which event it
shall not be released until finalisation of the proceedings.
Learned Government Pleader will make available the
records of the case. The payment of the amount will be subject
to the result of the writ petition.
But instead of releasing the vehicle in accordance with the
conditions therein the Deputy Collector (Election) passed
W.P.(C)No. 14579 of 2010
-2-
Ext.P5 order dated 9.4.2010 prescribing other conditions
also in addition to the conditions prescribed by this court.
The petitioner is challenging Ext.P5.
2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader who
submits that those additional conditions mentioned in
Ext.P5 are those prescribed by the Division Bench in
District Collector, Malappuram v. Abdul Kasim (2010
(1) KLT SN 31 (C.No.38) and therefore there is nothing
illegal in Ext.P5.
3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.
Ext.P5 is passed by the Deputy Collector (Election). The
Government Pleader has not been able to satisfy me that
the Deputy Collector has any power to pass such an order.
For that reason itself Ext.P5 is liable to be quashed. Apart
from that when this court directed the District Collector to
release the vehicle on specific conditions prescribed therein
even the District Collector could not have passed another
order prescribing some more conditions since he has not
chosen to challenge Ext.P5. Therefore Ext.P5 is liable to be
W.P.(C)No. 14579 of 2010
-3-
quashed. I do so. Since the vehicle has already been
released to the petitioner, I make it clear that the petitioner
would be liable to comply with only those conditions
prescribed in Ext.P5 order of this court.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
S. SIRI JAGAN
JUDGE
shg/