IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2010 / 26TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 18769 of 2010(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- VINEETH KUMAR.C.J., CHERUVLLIL HOUSE, MATHOOR.P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. (IN CHARGE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR) 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUMARAKAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. THE GEOLOGIST, MINING AND GEOLOGY, KOTTAYAM. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 18679 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 16th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext.P6 order of the District Collector prescribing conditions for interim custody of the vehicle belonging to the petitioner, which was seized on allegations of illegal transport of river sand. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has necessary documents to prove the legality of the transport and, therefore, the seizure itself was illegal. He also submits that the same is not river sand. I am not inclined to go into those contentions here. If the petitioner is willing to take interim custody of the vehicle complying with the conditions in Ext.P6, which I find is perfectly in tune with the Division Bench decision of this Court in District Collector, Malappuram v. Abdul Kasim [2010 (1) KLT SN 31 (C.No.38)], he may do so. However, I direct the District Collector to pass final orders pursuant to the seizure as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and to adduce evidence in support of his case. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge 2