IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 25220 of 2009(V)
1. SAINUDHEEN, S/O.MUHAMMED, AGED 34 YEARS
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR.
... 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 :28/08/2009
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J.
---------------------------
W.P.(C)No.25220 of 2009
---------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of August, 2009
JUDGMENT
The vehicle belonging to the petitioner, bearing registration No.KL-10/Q-
2097 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 vide Ext.P2 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 parameters
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 (Protection
W.P.(C).25220 of 2009
:: 2 ::
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 read with 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 applications for interim
custody. (The scope of the directions
W.P.(C).25220 of 2009
:: 3 ::
contained in Subramanian’s case has later been
dealt with in Sareesh v. District Collector
{2009(2) KLT 906}. Appropriate clarifications
have been issued in the said 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,
Subramanian’s case and Sareesh’s case which
have been referred to, the 1st respondent in
this case 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 a motion is
made by the petitioner for interim custody of
the vehicle, then orders shall be passed by
the District Collector on the application
{Ext.P2} for interim custody of the vehicle,
W.P.(C).25220 of 2009
:: 4 ::
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 in
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.
The writ petition is disposed of as
above. The petitioner shall produce copies of
the judgments in Subramanian, Shoukathali and
W.P.(C).25220 of 2009
:: 5 ::
Sareesh, along with the certified copy of this
judgment before the 1st respondent, for
compliance.
Sd/-
(V.GIRI)
Judge
sk/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge