IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 24TH MAY 2011 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 13682 of 2011(I) --------------------- PETITIONER : -------------------- AYAMUTTY, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMAD, KINATTINGAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PALLIPPURAM, VETTOM.P.O, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE,THRISSUR – 678 001. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHAVAKKAD POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT– 678 303. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BASANT BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 13682 OF 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of May, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the owner of a goods vehicle bearing registration No.KL-8-P-2257. The said vehicle was seized by the second respondent on 11.5.2011 on the allegation that it was used to transport river sand without a valid pass. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to release the vehicle to him by way of interim custody. 2. A full Bench of this Court has in Shan v. State of Kerala (2010 (3) KLT 413 (F.B.) held that the question of grant of interim custody of the vehicle seized under the provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) would not arise within a period of six weeks from the date of seizure if within that time, the proceedings initiated under the Act are concluded. The Full Bench held that if for any reason the proceedings under section 23 of the Act to confiscate the vehicle cannot be concluded within six weeks from the date of seizure of the vehicle, it will be open to the competent authority to grant interim custody of the vehicle on the conditions stipulated by the Full Bench. 3. In the instant case the petitioner's vehicle was seized only on 11.5.2011. The period of six weeks has not expired. Such being the situation, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot seek interim WPC No.13682/2011 2 custody of the vehicle at this stage. Faced with the situation, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the writ petition may be disposed of with a direction to the respondents to conclude the proceedings initiated by them within six week after notice to the petitioner and to release the vehicle by way of interim custody if within the said period of six weeks the respondents are not able to conclude the proceedings initiated by them. Having regard to the said submission, I dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to finalise the proceedings initiated against the petitioner's vehicle under section 23 of the Act with notice to the petitioner expeditiously and in any event within six weeks from the date of seizure of the vehicle. If for any reason the respondents are not in a position to conclude the proceedings within the said period, they shall grant interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner on the terms and conditions stipulated by the Full Bench of this Court in Shan v. State of Kerala (supra). P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps