IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 5689 of 2010(I)
1. SUPRAN,AGED 42 YEARS,S/O.VELAYUDHAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,ERNAKULAM,
... Respondent
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.SIRAJ KAROLY
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :22/02/2010
O R D E R
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No. 5689 of 2010 I
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is the registered owner and in
possession of a mini tipper lorry bearing registration No.KL-39A-
849. Ext.P1 is the copy of the relevant page of the registration
certificate produced in support of the above plea.
2. It is averred in the writ petition that the vehicle was
used for transport of building materials including bricks, cement,
sand, etc. on hire. On 19-12-2009 at about 8.15 a.m. while the
said vehicle was transporting ordinary sand from K.S.Mangalam to
Ernakulam via Thripunithura, it was intercepted by the Sub
Inspector of Police, the second respondent herein. According to
the petitioner, the driver of the vehicle produced the statutory pass
which was kept in the cabin(Ext.P2). It is alleged that the second
respondent seized the vehicle and reported the seizure to the first
respondent for initiation of proceedings under the provisions of
Kerala Protection of River Bank and Removal of Sand(Regulation)
Act, 2001. After awaiting suitable action for a number of days, the
WPC.5689/2010
: 2 :
petitioner approached the first respondent, District Collector, by
Ext.P3 request for release of the vehicle by way of interim custody
pending further action. The same was disposed of by Ext.P4.
Thereby, the vehicle has been ordered to be released on fulfilling
certain conditions.
3. The District Collector while passing the order relied
upon the judgment of the Division Bench in W.A.No.2578 of 2009
for imposing various conditions. After getting the details of the
value of the vehicle from the Regional Transport Officer, the value
of the vehicle has been shown in Ext.P4 as Rs.5,50,000/-. The
District Collector, hence, directed the petitioner to remit a sum of
Rs.2,75,000/- in the River Management Fund and to submit a
bond for the balance amount.
4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the direction to
remit the amount of Rs.2,75,000/- is arbitrary.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Government Pleader. The learned Government Pleader
brought to my notice that in the light of the directions issued by the
Division Bench in W.A.No.2578 of 2009, there is nothing wrong in
WPC.5689/2010
: 3 :
the District Collector prescribing the said condition for releasing
the vehicle. For convenience, I extract paragraph 7 of the
judgment in W.A.No.2578 of 2009 as follows:-
” 7. Having regard to the fact that large
number of cases involving illegal transportation
of sand in violation of the provisions contained
in Kerala Protection of River Banks &
Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001, we are
of the view that following guidelines/directions
have to be issued with regard to the release of
vehicles that may be involved in such cases.
(i) The vehicle shall be released to the
registered owner on his depositing half of the
total value of the vehicle as may be assessed by
the Assistant Executive Engineer(Mechanical),
PWD as provided under Rule 4 of the Kerala
Abkari(Disposal of Confiscated Articles) Rules,
1996 or the Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector.
(ii) The registered owner shall execute a
bond furnishing security for the balance amount
to the satisfaction of the District Collector
concerned. 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
WPC.5689/2010
: 4 :
the registered owner that he will not cause any
damage to the vehicle so as to reduce its value
and utility.
(iii) 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.”
In the light of the above direction issued by the Division
Bench, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in Ext.P4 order
passed by the District Collector. Therefore, the writ petition is
dismissed. This judgment will not stand in the way of the District
Collector passing final orders in respect of the proceedings
pending before him, within two months, after hearing the petitioner
and after assessing the various materials produced by the
petitioner. No costs.
Sd/-
(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE)
aks