IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 14119 of 2009(H)
1. SHANU,S/O.ABDUL REHMAN,AGED 36 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,PALAKKAD CIVIL
... Respondent
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,OTTAPALAM
For Petitioner :SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :23/05/2009
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).14119 of 2009
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2009
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the registered owner
of a Mini Lorry bearing registration No.KL-
51/7883, which was seized on the allegation
that it was being used for illegal
transportation of sand by the 2nd respondent.
The petitioner submits that no crime as such
has been registered against his vehicle.
Therefore, he approached the 2nd respondent for
release of the vehicle. But, he was told that
the entire papers regarding the seizure has
been forwarded to the 1st respondent.
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).
W.P.(C).14119 of 2009
:: 2 ::
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
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
W.P.(C).14119 of 2009
:: 3 ::
mentioned in paragraph 58 of the said
judgment. The District Collector may pass
orders on such applications on interim
custody. 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 judgments 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 motion is made
by the 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
W.P.(C).14119 of 2009
:: 4 ::
this judgment, in the light of the
observations contained in Shoukathali Vs.
Tahasildar [2009 (1) KLT 640 and Subramanian
Vs. State of Kerala [2009 (1) KLT 77).
The writ petition is disposed of as
above. The petitioner shall produce copies of
the judgment in Subramanian and Shoukathali
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