{"id":187106,"date":"2010-08-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aboobacker-siddique-vs-the-district-collector-on-3-august-2010"},"modified":"2018-12-18T12:07:58","modified_gmt":"2018-12-18T06:37:58","slug":"aboobacker-siddique-vs-the-district-collector-on-3-august-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aboobacker-siddique-vs-the-district-collector-on-3-august-2010","title":{"rendered":"Aboobacker Siddique vs The District Collector on 3 August, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Aboobacker Siddique vs The District Collector on 3 August, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 15151 of 2009(L)\n\n\n1. ABOOBACKER SIDDIQUE, S\/O.ALIKUTTY,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR,\n\n3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.BABU S. NAIR\n\n                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN\n\n Dated :03\/08\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                              S. Siri Jagan, J.\n\n               =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=\n               W.P(C) Nos. 15151, 15247, 15580, 17172,\n              17187, 25730, 25750, 25763, 25867, 25879,\n              25952, 25962, 26073, 26191, 26255, 26478,\n                        28830 & 31490 of 2009\n\n               =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=\n\n               Dated this, the 3rd day of August, 2010.\n\n                             J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
      In all these writ petitions, the petitioners challenge orders of the<\/p>\n
respective District Collector passed under the Kerala Protection of<\/p>\n
River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001, by which<\/p>\n
on finding that the vehicles owned\/possessed by the petitioners have<\/p>\n
been used for illegal transportation of river sand in violation of the<\/p>\n
provisions of the Act and Rules, the petitioners have been directed to<\/p>\n
pay the value of the vehicles towards the River Management Fund.<\/p>\n
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in all these writ<\/p>\n
petitions advanced only one set of arguments without going into the<\/p>\n
merits of the case on facts in respect of each order challenged in each<\/p>\n
writ petition. He bases his contention only on the applicability of the<\/p>\n
amended Section 23 of the Act, which came into force with effect<\/p>\n
from 14-7-2010 , which contention has not been raised in the writ<\/p>\n
petition.  According to him, although all the orders challenged in<\/p>\n
these writ petitions were passed prior to the coming into force of the<\/p>\n
said amendment, in view of the beneficial provisions introduced by<\/p>\n
the amendment, which gives added protection to owners\/possessors<\/p>\n
of the vehicles accused of being used for illegal transportation of<\/p>\n
river sand, such provisions should be construed as retrospective in<\/p>\n
nature and therefore all these orders should be set aside and the<\/p>\n
matters should be remanded to the original authority as per the<\/p>\n
amended provisions of the Act so as to re-do the procedure              in<\/p>\n
accordance with the amended provisions of the Act.             He would<\/p>\n
contend that insofar as the amendment does not result in taking<\/p>\n
away of any vested right in anybody, the same can be construed as<\/p>\n
W.P.C. No. 15151\/2009 etc.        -: 2 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
retrospective and the benefit of the amended provisions can be made<\/p>\n
available to the petitioner in these cases. Learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioners refers to the following decisions of the Supreme Court in<\/p>\n
support of his contention:     K. Eapen Chacko v. The Provident<\/p>\n
Investment Company (P) Ltd.,<\/a> 1976 SC 2610,              Sita Ram and<\/p>\n
others v. The State of Uttar Pradesh,<\/a> 1979 SC 745, Maru Ram v.<\/p>\n
Union of India, 1980 SC 2147, Mithilesh Kumari and another v.<\/p>\n
Prem Behari Khare, 1989 SC 1247, State through C.B.I., Delhi v.<\/p>\n
Gian Singh, AIR<\/a> 1999 SC 3450, Shiv Shakti Co-op.              Housing<\/p>\n
Society, Nagpur v. M\/s. Swaraj Developers and others<\/a>, 2003 SC<\/p>\n
2434 and Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand and another, 2005<\/p>\n
SC 2731.\n<\/p>\n
      2. The contention proceeds as follows:\n<\/p>\n
      By amendment of the Section 23, an elaborate new procedure<\/p>\n
has been prescribed with a right of       revision before the District<\/p>\n
Collector and a right of appeal before the District Court. Only after<\/p>\n
the confiscation proceedings are over, a criminal prosecution can be<\/p>\n
launched. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, under<\/p>\n
the Mines      and    Mineral  (Development    and    Regulation)  Act,<\/p>\n
confiscation can be effected only by the criminal court trying an<\/p>\n
offence under the Act, that too, on successful prosecution for the<\/p>\n
offence alleged. It is unlike to that provision that in the present Act,<\/p>\n
a power to confiscate the vehicle without successful prosecution is<\/p>\n
incorporated and therefore when the rigor of the law has been<\/p>\n
minimized by the beneficial provisions of the amended Act, such<\/p>\n
beneficial provisions should be made applicable to the petitioners’<\/p>\n
vehicles also.\n<\/p>\n
W.P.C. No. 15151\/2009 etc.        -: 3 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
      3. In answer to that, the learned Government Pleader would<\/p>\n
contend that the petitioners cannot now raise such a contention in<\/p>\n
view of the fact that in these cases themselves, on an earlier reference<\/p>\n
by a learned Single Judge of this Court to a Division Bench, because<\/p>\n
of a decision of another learned Single Judge taking a view contrary<\/p>\n
to the earlier Division Bench decision and in that reference, in the<\/p>\n
decision of Abdu Rahiman v. District Collector, Malappuram,<\/a><\/p>\n
2009(4) KLT 485, a Division Bench held against the petitioners in<\/p>\n
these writ petitions themselves and therefore the petitioners are<\/p>\n
bound by that decision and cannot take a contention contrary to that<\/p>\n
decision. He would further submit that a Division Bench of this Court,<\/p>\n
in Abdul Samad v. State of Kerala,<\/a> 2007(4) KLT 473, has upheld<\/p>\n
the power of the District Collector to confiscate the vehicle under<\/p>\n
Section 23 of the Act even without a seizure under Section 102 of the<\/p>\n
Crl. P.C, which would         mean that even without a successful<\/p>\n
prosecution in a criminal court, the District Collector has power to<\/p>\n
confiscate the vehicle. That decision was later followed by another<\/p>\n
Division Bench in Moosakoya v. State of Kerala,<\/a> 2008(1) KLT 538.<\/p>\n
      4. As far as the contention regarding retrospective operation of<\/p>\n
the amended provisions, the learned Government Pleader points out<\/p>\n
that Section 1(2) of the Amendment Ordinance specifically stipulates<\/p>\n
that the Ordinance shall come into force at once, which would mean<\/p>\n
that the amendment is only prospective and not retrospective.<\/p>\n
Therefore, according to        the learned Government Pleader, the<\/p>\n
contention of the petitioners that in view of the amendment by the<\/p>\n
Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand<\/p>\n
(Amendment) Ordinance, 2010, which came into force with effect<\/p>\n
W.P.C. No. 15151\/2009 etc.            -: 4 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
from 14-10-2010, which is retrospective in character, the impugned<\/p>\n
orders should be set aside and the matters should be remanded to the<\/p>\n
original authority for fresh consideration in accordance with the<\/p>\n
amended provisions, does not have any merit whatsoever. He would<\/p>\n
further submit that the right of appeal is referable to the date on<\/p>\n
which the impugned order is passed and a proceeding under Article<\/p>\n
226 of the Constitution of India is not a continuation of the original<\/p>\n
proceedings as in the case of an appeal.\n<\/p>\n
       5. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.<\/p>\n
       6. First of all, I do not think that the Ordinance is retrospective<\/p>\n
in character insofar as the Ordinance expressly makes it clear that it<\/p>\n
would come into force with effect from the date of the Ordinance.<\/p>\n
Section 1 of the Ordinance reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
       “1. Short title and commencement:- (1) This Ordinance may be
\n       called the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of
\n       Removal of Sand (Amendment) Ordinance, 2010.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       (2)   It shall come into force at once.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
That Section specifically        and abundantly makes it clear that the<\/p>\n
amended provisions would come into force with effect from the date<\/p>\n
of that Ordinance only. Conversely, it would mean that the provisions<\/p>\n
of the amendment are not retrospective in nature. In fact, that itself<\/p>\n
would be sufficient to repel the contention of the petitioners that the<\/p>\n
matter should be remanded to the original authority for fresh<\/p>\n
consideration in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act.<\/p>\n
Still, I am inclined to consider the other contentions raised by the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Government<\/p>\n
W.P.C. No. 15151\/2009 etc.       -: 5 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
Pleader.\n<\/p>\n
      7. A learned Single Judge before whom the same came up for<\/p>\n
consideration, referred these writ petitions for consideration of a<\/p>\n
Division Bench in view of another decision of a learned Single Judge in<\/p>\n
Ahammed Kutty v. State of Kerala,<\/a> 2008(1) KLT 1068 refusing to<\/p>\n
follow two earlier Division Bench decisions of this Court on the<\/p>\n
ground that against one of those decisions, the matter was taken to<\/p>\n
the Supreme Court, in which there was a stay. Considering that<\/p>\n
reference order, a Division Bench of this Court         has in   Abdu<\/p>\n
Rahiman v. District Collector,<\/a> 2009(4) KLT 485 held that despite<\/p>\n
the stay granted by the Supreme Court against the         judgment in<\/p>\n
Abdul Samad’s case, the learned Single Judges of this Court are<\/p>\n
bound by the ratio of that decision in respect of other cases. Again, in<\/p>\n
that decision, the Division Bench upheld the view of the earlier<\/p>\n
Division Bench in Abdul Samad’s case by holding that the District<\/p>\n
Collector has powers to order confiscation of the vehicles        even<\/p>\n
without a seizure under Section 102 of the Crl. P.C and without<\/p>\n
reference the matter to the criminal court. That would essentially<\/p>\n
mean that even         without a successful prosecution, the District<\/p>\n
Collector has power to order confiscation of the vehicles, which are<\/p>\n
found to have been used for illegal transportation of river sand. The<\/p>\n
orders impugned in all these writ petitions have been passed based on<\/p>\n
that law as explained by the Division Bench. Here, I note that the<\/p>\n
constitutional validity of the Act as a whole and particularly Section<\/p>\n
23 thereof has been specifically upheld by a learned Single Judge of<\/p>\n
this Court in Subramanian v. State of Kerala,<\/a> 2009(1) KLT 77, with<\/p>\n
which I respectfully agree. In that decision, it was specifically held<\/p>\n
W.P.C. No. 15151\/2009 etc.       -: 6 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
that the power to order confiscation is not dependent on conviction of<\/p>\n
a person concerned in a criminal case for an offence under the Act.<\/p>\n
Therefore, I have to consider the validity of those impugned orders on<\/p>\n
the basis of the position of law as it existed on the date of passing<\/p>\n
those orders and not on the basis of the amended provisions of the<\/p>\n
Act, which came into force long after the passing of the orders<\/p>\n
impugned in these writ petitions.\n<\/p>\n
      8. The law as it existed on the date of passing of those orders,<\/p>\n
as I have already stated above, is that the District Collector had<\/p>\n
powers to order confiscation even in the absence of a criminal case<\/p>\n
before the criminal court or a successful prosecution thereof. It is in<\/p>\n
exercise of such powers the impugned orders have been passed. I do<\/p>\n
not think that I can consider the validity of those orders on the basis<\/p>\n
of the amended provisions of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
      9. Even apart from that, insofar as the petitioners themselves<\/p>\n
have invoked the power of judicial review of this Court under Article<\/p>\n
226 of the Constitution of India, I can certainly consider the validity<\/p>\n
of those orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As<\/p>\n
such, it is not necessary to remand the matter back to the original<\/p>\n
authority even otherwise.\n<\/p>\n
      10. As I have already stated in the beginning, the learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the petitioners confined his arguments to the question of<\/p>\n
law on the basis of the amended provisions of the Act and did not<\/p>\n
advance any arguments on merits against those orders, since,<\/p>\n
according to him, he cannot canvass the validity of the findings of fact<\/p>\n
in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As<\/p>\n
rightly pointed out by him, this Court can go into the findings of fact<\/p>\n
W.P.C. No. 15151\/2009 etc.        -: 7 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
in such orders only if      such findings of facts are demonstrably<\/p>\n
perverse. In the impugned orders, the District Collector has come to<\/p>\n
the finding that the vehicles have been used for illegal transportation<\/p>\n
of river sand in violation of the provisions of the Kerala Protection of<\/p>\n
River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 and Rules<\/p>\n
on the basis of the material available before him. Accordingly, for<\/p>\n
such violation, the petitioners have been directed to pay the value of<\/p>\n
the vehicle as assessed by a competent officer to the River<\/p>\n
Management Fund. I do not think that such findings are in any way<\/p>\n
perverse so as to enable this Court to interfere with those orders.<\/p>\n
      In view of my above findings, there is no merit in any of these<\/p>\n
writ petitions. Accordingly, they are dismissed.<\/p>\n
                                          Sd\/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.\n<\/p>\n
Tds\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Aboobacker Siddique vs The District Collector on 3 August, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 15151 of 2009(L) 1. ABOOBACKER SIDDIQUE, S\/O.ALIKUTTY, … Petitioner Vs 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, … Respondent 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, For Petitioner :SRI.BABU S. NAIR For Respondent […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-187106","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAboobacker Siddique vs The District Collector on 3 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aboobacker-siddique-vs-the-district-collector-on-3-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Aboobacker Siddique vs The District Collector on 3 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aboobacker-siddique-vs-the-district-collector-on-3-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-08-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-18T06:37:58+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aboobacker-siddique-vs-the-district-collector-on-3-august-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aboobacker-siddique-vs-the-district-collector-on-3-august-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Aboobacker Siddique vs The District Collector on 3 August, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-18T06:37:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aboobacker-siddique-vs-the-district-collector-on-3-august-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1874,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aboobacker-siddique-vs-the-district-collector-on-3-august-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aboobacker-siddique-vs-the-district-collector-on-3-august-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aboobacker-siddique-vs-the-district-collector-on-3-august-2010\",\"name\":\"Aboobacker Siddique vs The District Collector on 3 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-18T06:37:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aboobacker-siddique-vs-the-district-collector-on-3-august-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aboobacker-siddique-vs-the-district-collector-on-3-august-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aboobacker-siddique-vs-the-district-collector-on-3-august-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Aboobacker Siddique vs The District Collector on 3 August, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Aboobacker Siddique vs The District Collector on 3 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aboobacker-siddique-vs-the-district-collector-on-3-august-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Aboobacker Siddique vs The District Collector on 3 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aboobacker-siddique-vs-the-district-collector-on-3-august-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-18T06:37:58+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aboobacker-siddique-vs-the-district-collector-on-3-august-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aboobacker-siddique-vs-the-district-collector-on-3-august-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Aboobacker Siddique vs The District Collector on 3 August, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-18T06:37:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aboobacker-siddique-vs-the-district-collector-on-3-august-2010"},"wordCount":1874,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aboobacker-siddique-vs-the-district-collector-on-3-august-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aboobacker-siddique-vs-the-district-collector-on-3-august-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aboobacker-siddique-vs-the-district-collector-on-3-august-2010","name":"Aboobacker Siddique vs The District Collector on 3 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-18T06:37:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aboobacker-siddique-vs-the-district-collector-on-3-august-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aboobacker-siddique-vs-the-district-collector-on-3-august-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aboobacker-siddique-vs-the-district-collector-on-3-august-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Aboobacker Siddique vs The District Collector on 3 August, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/187106","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=187106"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/187106\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=187106"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=187106"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=187106"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}