IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2010 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 37251 of 2010(F) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- SUPRAN P.V.,S/O.VELAYUDHAN, PADINJARE PUTHUKKAD, SOUTH PARAVOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM-682 320. BY ADV. SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR, SRI.K.JAGADEESH. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682 002. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM-682 001 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, HILL PALACE POLICE STATIION, THRIPPUNITHIRA. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.P.N. SANTHOSH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/12/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P (C) No.37251 of 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 17th December, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the registered owner of a vehicle bearing registration No.KL-39-A/849. Proceedings were initiated under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. Such proceedings culminated in Ext.P1 order dated 20.4.2010 issued by the District Collector ordering confiscation of the vehicle and giving a right to the petitioner to redeem the same. That order was challenged before this Court in W.P.(C) No.14583/2010 and on its dismissal, Writ Appeal No.1617/2010 filed by the petitioner is pending. 2. While so, on 18.10.2010, petitioner made an application to the second respondent to get the sand tested by the Directorate of Mining and Geology and the second respondent, without being aware of the previous orders that were passed by the first respondent, the dismissal of the writ petition and the pendency of the writ appeal, forwarded a sample for testing. It is stated that report was obtained stating that the sand in question was W.P (C) No.37251 of 2010 2 ordinary sand. Accordingly, Ext.P3 was passed by the second respondent on 23.11.2010 releasing the vehicle to the petitioner, levying a fine of `.15,000/-. According to the learned Government Pleader, it was only thereafter the second respondent came to know of the previous proceedings and thereupon, realising the mistake that he committed, the petitioner was called upon to surrender the vehicle. It is at that stage contending that since the vehicle has already been released, it was illegal to order surrender of the vehicle, this writ petition has been filed. 3. According to the learned Government Pleader, it was only because of the previous proceedings which were not within the knowledge of the second respondent when he passed Ext.P3 order that on coming to know of the previous proceedings the R.D.O required the surrender of the vehicle. 4. Irrespective of the correctness of Ext.P1 issued by the first respondent, which is pending consideration of this Court in Writ Appeal No.1617/2010, in my view, it was not open to the petitioner to make an application to the W.P (C) No.37251 of 2010 3 second respondent which only resulted in Ext.P3. If he was aggrieved by the earlier orders, remedy open to him was to prosecute the writ appeal, instead of making a fresh application to the R.D.O. Therefore, on coming to know of Ext.P1, if the second respondent realised that the vehicle was released mistakenly, he was free to require the petitioner to produce the vehicle. Therefore the petitioner is bound to surrender the vehicle and he shall do so. 5. It is directed that in the event petitioner fails to surrender the vehicle, it will be open to the second respondent to get the vehicle seized availing of the assistance of the Police Department. 6. Petitioner shall communicate a copy of this judgment to the second respondent, for compliance. Writ petition is disposed. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE ma /True copy/ P.A to Judge