IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 23RD NOVEMBER 2009 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 32736 of 2009(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ABDUL JALEEL M, S/O. HYDER MADARI HOUSE, MALAYAMMA, KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOZHIKKODE. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE THAMARASSERY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT TRIVANDRUM. BY GP SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J ....................... W.P.(C).32736/2009 ....................... Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the registered owner of a goods vehicle bearing registration No.KL-08M/2189. The said vehicle was seized by the second respondent on 30.9.2009 on the allegation that it was used to transport river sand without a valid pass. After seizure, a report was submitted to the District Collector, Kozhikode. The petitioner thereupon moved the District Collector seeking interim custody of his vehicle. When orders were not passed, he filed W.P.(C).No.28096 of 2009 in this Court. By Ext.P2 judgment delivered on 7.10.2009 this Court directed the District Collector to pass orders granting interim custody of the petitioner's vehicle on such terms and conditions as he may fit to impose. The District Collector was also directed to pass final orders within three months. As directed by this court in Ext.P2 judgment, the District Collector passed Ext.P3 order granting interim custody of the vehicle on terms including remittance of the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in the river management fund. This writ petition W.P.(C).32736/2009 2 is filed challenging the validity of Rule 29(c) of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Rules, 2002. In my opinion, the challenge to the validity of the Rule at this stage is premature. I have by Ext.P2 judgment directed the District Collector to pass final orders in the matter. The time limit fixed by this Court in Ext.P2 judgment will expire shortly. If the District Collector does not order confiscation of the petitioner's vehicle, the petitioner cannot be said to be aggrieved. I therefore find no grounds to entertain this writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed leaving open the petitioner's contentions and reserving liberty with him to challenge the validity of Rule 29(c) of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Rules, 2002, in other appropriate proceedings, after the District Collector passes final orders as directed by this Court in Ext.P2 judgment and if the petitioner is aggrieved thereby. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge mrcs