IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 28TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 4985 of 2011(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- MUJEEB, S/O.MAMMUTTY, MANCHERI HOUSE, PATHAR P.O., PANAMKAYAM, CHUNGATHARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM, PIN-676505. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PERINTHALMANNA-679322. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: dmb P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No. 4985 OF 2011 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T The vehicle bearing Registration No.KL-10 AB 8614 (Nissan Tipper Lorry) owned by the petitioner, was seized on 21.12.2010, for allegedly transporting river sand without a valid pass. The proceedings taken under the relevant provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 and Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Rules, 2002 thereunder, led to Ext.P1 order, confiscating the vehicle. However, by virtue of the relevant provisions of law, the petitioner has been enabled to redeem the vehicle on satisfying the value of the vehicle fixed as Rs.3,10,000/-. The petitioner filed an application before the 1st respondent as borne by Ext.P3, for enabling him to satisfy the liability, by way of instalments, which however, was turned down vide Ext.P4 stating that there is no provision either in the 'Act' or under the 'Rules', for granting such relief; which made the petitioner to approach this Court. W.P.(C)No. 4985 OF 2011 2 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not intend to challenge Ext.P1 order before this Court or before the statutory authority/forum and that the petitioner would like to satisfy the liability to have the vehicle redeemed as provided, by way of compounding. As such, the cause of action has turned rather to be of Civil in nature and release of the vehicle can be made subject to terms. 4. In the said circumstances, this Court finds that there is nothing wrong in permitting the petitioner, who does not intend to challenge the order, giving some accommodation, taking note of the value of the vehicle involved. Accordingly, the petitioner is permitted to clear the liability by way of 'five' equal monthly instalments commencing this month. On satisfaction of 50% of the liability as aforesaid, the vehicle shall be released to the petitioner on condition that the petitioner furnishes adequate security for the balance amount, either in the form of bank guarantee or immovable property to the satisfaction of the respondents. W.P.(C)No. 4985 OF 2011 3 5. It is made clear that, if the petitioner commits any default, it will be open to the respondents to seize the vehicle and to proceed against in accordance with law. If the vehicle is found involved in any similar offence later, the custody of the vehicle taken at such instance shall never be released to the petitioner under any circumstance and appropriate prosecution proceedings shall be launched on such event. The vehicle shall be surrendered before the respondents as and when demanded, in case of any default and if there is any failure, it will be open to the respondents to invoke the 'bank guarantee' or to proceed against the immovable property given as security as aforesaid. The writ petition is disposed of. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dmb