High Court Kerala High Court

Shahid T vs The District Collector on 7 October, 2009

Kerala High Court
Shahid T vs The District Collector on 7 October, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 28179 of 2009(N)


1. SHAHID T, S/O. HAMSA,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,PAZHAZYANNUR

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN

 Dated :07/10/2009

 O R D E R

P.N.RAVINDRAN,J.

—————————————-
W.P.(C) No.28179 of 2009 – N

—————————————-
Dated 7th October, 2009

Judgment

Heard Sri.Shoby K. Francise, the learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner and Sri.P.N.Santhosh, the learned Government Pleader

appearing for the respondents.

2. The petitioner is the owner of a mini lorry bearing registration

No.KL/07AY – 5130 under an agreement of sale. The said vehicle was

seized by the second respondent and produced before the District

Collector, Thrissur on 26.9.2009 on the allegation that it was used to

transport river sand without a valid pass. The petitioner thereafter

moved the District Collector by submitting Ext.P2 representation on

28.9.2009. The petitioner’s grievance is that notwithstanding the

request made by him in Ext.P2, the District Collector has not so far

released the vehicle to him by way of interim custody. In this writ

petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the District Collector to

release the vehicle belonging to him by way of interim custody.

3. A learned Single Judge of this Court has in Subramanian v.

State of Kerala (2009 (1) KLT 77), while upholding the

constitutional validity of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and

W.P.(C) No.28179/2009 -:2:-

Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001, held that the District

Collector has the power to direct release of any vehicle which is seized

and produced before him by way of interim custody. In my opinion, in

the light of the decision of this Court in Subramanian v. State of

Kerala (supra), the District Collector has to consider the request made

by the petitioner for interim custody of the vehicle and pass orders

thereon. I accordingly dispose of the writ petition with the following

directions:

(1) The District Collector, Thrissur shall consider the request

made by the petitioner for interim custody of his vehicle and release

the vehicle by way of interim custody within seven days from the date

on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment

before the District Collector on such terms and conditions as he may

deem fit to impose; and

(2) The District Collector, Thrissur shall pass final orders in the

matter pending before him expeditiously and, in any event, within

three months from such date, after affording the petitioner a

reasonable opportunity of being heard. The petitioner’s contentions on

the merits are kept open.

P.N.RAVINDRAN
Judge

vaa