IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2011 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 32813 of 2011(B) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- MOHAMMED HANEEFA, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.POKKER, PALAKKAL HOUSE, VETTOM PALLIPURAM P.O, VP ANGADI, MALAPPURAM-676 102. BY ADV. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN SRI.P.G.SURESH SRI.M.M.NIAS SMT.K.VIDYA SRI.RAJAN VISHNU RAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.676 505 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TIRUR.PIN-676 101 3. THRIPANGODU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.PIN-676102 4. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, TIRUR.PIN-676 101 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, TIRUR.PIN-676 101 6. THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, TIRUR.PIN-676 101 R1 & R2,R4 TO R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED SHAH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.32813/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P1 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATEC PARTICULARS OF VEHICLE BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL-16/E-1571 EXT.P2 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALE AGREEMENT DATED 3.1.2011 EXECUTED BETWEEN R/C OWNER OF THE VEHICLE AND PETITIONER. EXT.P3 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PASS ISSUED BY THRIPANGODU PANCHAYATH DATED 30.11.2011. EXT.P4 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE OBJECTION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SDM, AGAINST THIS ILLEGAL SEIZURE. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 32813 of 2011 B ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 9th day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Petitioner is the registered owner of vehicle bearing registration No.KL-16E-1571. Proceedings under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 initiated against him are pending. It is at that stage, this writ petition has been filed. 2. As already seen, proceedings are pending and, therefore, it is for the 6th respondent to finalise the proceedings in accordance with law. This, the 6th respondent shall do, without delay. 3. Petitioner says that he has already made an application for interim custody of the vehicle. If that be so, the 6th respondent shall pass orders on such application in the manner as directed by the Full Bench of this Court in the judgment in Shan C.T. Vs. State of Kerala [2010 (3) KHC 333]. W.P.(C) No.32813/2011 : 2 : Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment and a copy of the writ petition before the 6th respondent for compliance. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks/09/12 // True Copy // P.A. To Judge