IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2010 / 14TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 37322 of 2009(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JAYAN,S/O.SUBRAMANIAN, AIKKARA, KANIAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, KATTATHURUTHU P.O.VADAKKEKKARA N.PARAVUR. BY ADV. SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN SRI.K.S.RAJESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOME SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE ALUVA. 4. THE S.I. OF POLICE, N.PARAVUR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SHRI P.Narayanan THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.37322/2009-I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 4th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner hired a country boat as per Ext.P1 rental agreement between the petitioner and the owner of the boat, namely, one Mr.Anilkumar. Ext.P2 is said to be the copy of the licence issued by the Canal Officer, Kodungallur which is valid upto 31/03/2010. The petitioner's case is that the country boat was being used for the transport of coconut which is permissible under law. But, on 19/12/2009, the Sub Inspector of Police and other police party seized the country boat alleging that it is used for transportation of sand. 2. Apprehending that the country boat will be destroyed without taking any action under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act and Rules, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 3. The learned Government Pleader on instructions submitted that a report will be forwarded to the District Collector duly by the Police Officer and, the District Collector will proceed in accordance with law as enjoined by the provisions of the Act. W.P.(C). No.37322/2009 -:2:- 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that pending such proceedings, the respondents may not take any action to destroy the country boat itself. 5. The said request is genuine. It is upto the District Collector to take any action, if any, on the complaints made against the petitioner. In that view of the matter, I am not going into the disputed questions of fact. 6. As per the interim order dated 22/12/2009, this Court had made it clear that if the boat is covered by Ext.P2 licence, the boat will be retained in as is where is condition till the next date of hearing. The said interim order will continue till final orders are passed by the District Collector in terms of the provisions of the Act. The petitioner will be given all opportunities to defend the action. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms