IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 19010 of 2009(U)
1. VIJAYAKUMAR M.K., S/O.AYYAKANNAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM.
... Respondent
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.BABU S. NAIR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :07/07/2009
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J.
---------------------------
W.P.(C)No.19010 of 2009
---------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of July, 2009
JUDGMENT
The vehicle belonging to the petitioner, bearing
registration No.KL-8AF/2257 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 vide Ext.P2 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 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
W.P.(C).19010 of 2009
:: 2 ::
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 interim custody. (The scope
of the directions contained in Subramanian’s case has later
been dealt with in Sareesh v. District Collector {2009(2)
KLT 906}. Appropriate clarifications have been issued in
the said 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].
W.P.(C).19010 of 2009
:: 3 ::
4. Keeping in mind the observations made in
the judgments in Shoukathali’s case, Subramanian’s case
and Sareesh’s case 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 application
{Ext.P2} 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 in Sareesh v. District
Collector {2009(2) KLT 906}.
6. I make it clear that I have not considered
the petitioner’s contentions on merits. It is upto the District
Collector to consider whether the vehicle is to be released
on interim custody or not. It is also upto the District
W.P.(C).19010 of 2009
:: 4 ::
Collector to consider, in accordance with law, the question
as to whether the vehicle belonging to the petitioner has
been used in a manner as to contravene the provisions of
the Act and the Rules framed thereunder and as to whether
the vehicle is liable for confiscation and pass final orders on
that basis.
The writ petition is disposed of as above. The
petitioner shall produce copies of the judgments in
Subramanian, Shoukathali and Sareesh, 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