IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 35158 of 2009(L)
1. V.S. NOUSHAD, S/O. ABDUL KHADER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD.
... Respondent
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,KONGAD, PALAKKAD
3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
4. K.RAJEEV, S/O.KRISHNAN,
5. RAMESH, S/O. RAMAKRISHNAN,
6. SATHEESH KUMAR,
For Petitioner :SRI.G.HARIHARAN
For Respondent :SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :22/12/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J
--------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No. 35158 OF 2009
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2010
JUDGMENT
Petitioner challenges Ext.P4 order passed by the
District Collector, ordering interim custody of the vehicle to the 5th
respondent. According to the petitioner, the 5th respondent was
only a driver and that he being the registered owner, he alone
was entitled to get interim custody of the vehicle. It is on this
premise, writ petition was filed challenging Ext.P4.
2. The learned Government Pleader submits that the writ
petition has been filed without any bonafides, as it is a collusive
attempt between the petitioner and the 5th respondent. It is also
stated that in pursuance to Ext.P4, though the vehicle was
released, it was again seized on the allegation that it was
engaged for illegal transportation of river sand. Further, it is also
pointed out, in view of the pendency of this proceedings, final
orders in the proceedings in relation to the vehicle have not been
passed.
W.P.(C).No. 35158 OF 2009
2
3. Admittedly, as at present there are two proceedings
pending against the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-7BB-6717
of which rival claims of ownership are raised by the petitioner and
the 5th respondent. Therefore, at this stage, the only order that is
required to be passed that the Sub Divisional Magistrate, the
competent authority under the provisions of Kerala Protection of
River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act 2001, shall
pass final orders in the matter, issuing notice to the petitioner and
the 5th respondent. This, the Sub Divisional Magistrate shall do as
expeditiously as possible at any rate within eight weeks of
production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this
writ petition.
ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
dmb