IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 14807 of 2009(U)
1. SHOUKATH ALI, AGED 35, S/O. HAMZA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. R.D.O.,
For Petitioner :SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :29/05/2009
O R D E R
V.GIRI,J.
-------------------------
W.P ( C) No.14807 of 2009
--------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of May,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, the 1st respondent for release of the
vehicle 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
W.P ( C) No.14807 of 2009
:: 2 ::
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 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
W.P ( C) No.14807 of 2009
:: 3 ::
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 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
W.P ( C) No.14807 of 2009
:: 4 ::
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 judgments in
Subramanian, Shoukathali and W.P (C ) No.14319 of 2009
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