IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH AUGUST 2011 / 2ND BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 22153 of 2011(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MANIYAPPAN.P.R., S/O.RAMAPANICKER, AGED 56 YEARS, PATHILCHERA VEEDU, KIDAGARA MURI, VELYANADU VILLAGE, KUTTANADU TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.AJITH MURALI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 689 645. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 689 645. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ARANMULA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 689 645. SR GP SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 22153 of 2011 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN W.P.NO.4236/2011 DATED 9.2.2011 EXT.P2- THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.DM4-4308 DATED 13.5.2011 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND DRAFT NO.4104123006453 SYNDICATE BANK PATHANAMTHITTA BRANCH DATED 10.6.2011 EXT.P4- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B3-944/2011 DATED 10.6.2011 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT (True copy) P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).22153/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 24th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT On the allegation that his country boat bearing registration No.K.V.Cut No.3649 KT was used in violation of the provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2011, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and the country boat was also seized and detained by the third respondent. The said proceedings concluded by an order passed by the second respondent, a copy of which is Ext.P4. By this order the petitioner was ordered to pay Rs.9,000/- and on that condition, the third respondent has authorized to release the country boat. Accordingly, by Ext.P3 Demand Draft, the petitioner remitted the value as ordered in Ext.P4 order of the second respondent. 2. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions from the third respondent, confirms that the value has been remitted by the petitioner. Despite this, the country boat was not released and it is with this grievance, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking appropriate directions in the matter. W.P.(C).22153/2011 2 3. According to the third respondent, the country boat was kept at Aranmula Sathrakadavu and that on account of the Monsoon and the flood, the country boat is now lying sunk in the river. It is stated that the boat will have to be retrieved which is possible only when the water level recedes. 4. In my view, once the boat is seized, it is the responsibility of the authorities to keep the boat in a safe condition. When remittance of value is made and boat is to be returned, it is no answer to contend that the country boat is lying sunk in the flood. Even if it is true, it is for the authority to retrieve the boat and give the custody of the same to the petitioner from whom it was seized. 5. Therefore I direct that, on the production of a copy of this judgment, third respondent will ensure that the country boat is retrieved and entrusted to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three weeks of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs