IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 7TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 29490 of 2010(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- ABDUL MAJEED, S/O.ENIKUTTY, ALUNGAL HOUSE, PERINTHALLORE PO, TRIPRANGODE TIRUR TALUK ,R.C.OWNER OF KL.10 9411. TATA MINI LORRY. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. THE STATTE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KALPAKANCHERY POLICE STATION, TIRUR, TALUK, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER TIRUR. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.DILEEP MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 29490 OF 2010 () ===================== Dated this the 29th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the registered owner of Vehicle bearing Regn.No.KL-10/C 9411, a Tata Mini Lorry. The vehicle was seized on 29/3/2010 on the allegation that it was used for the unauthorised transportation of river sand and for rash and negligent driving under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Cole. Ext.P1 is the FIR. In this writ petition, he disputes the allegations on the basis the crime has been registered and proceedings under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 have been initiated, and on that basis, he seeks to get the whole proceedings quashed. 2. In my view, unless the petitioner is able to establish before appropriate authorities that the aforesaid proceedings are vitiated either for want of evidence or for other reasons, petitioner cannot seek the relief sought for. This exercise cannot be undertaken in a writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition is misconceived and has to be dismissed and I do so. Be that as it may, having regard to the fact that the WPC No. 29490/10 :2 : proceedings under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 are pending before the 2nd respondent, it will be open to the petitioner to seek interim custody of the vehicle, in which event, the said authority will consider the request of the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Act and in accordance with the law as laid down by this Court in Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala [2010(3)KHC 333]. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp