IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2011 / 4TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 22685 of 2011(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- SAJEER MUHAMMED BASHEER, S/O.MUHAMMED BASHEER, AGED 29 YEARS, SAJNA MANZIL, AYIROOR, PANGODU, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARGODE, PIN-671 121. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANJESWARAM POLICE STATION, KASARGODE DISTRICT, PIN-671 323. SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.22685/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: True copy of the transit permit issued under the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 issued by the dealer dt 29.7.11. EXT.P2: True English translation of Ext.P1. EXT.P3: True copy of the certificate issued by the Commercial Tax Officer, Commercial Tax Check Post,Manjeswar dt 17.8.11. EXT.P4: True copy of the receipt issued from the weigh bridge of commercial tax check pot, Manjeswar dt 30.7.11. EXT.P5: True copy of judgment dt 16.8.11 of this Hon'ble Court in WA No.1206/11 EXT.P6: True copy of order issued by the Government of Kerala as G.O (MS) No.161/09/ID dt 14.12.2009. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 22685 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 26th day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims to be the owner of a goods carriage bearing Regn.No.KL-01 W 3006. According to the petitioner, he was transporting ordinary sand purchased from Thumbe in Dakshina Kanara District in the State of Karnataka. It is stated that the vehicle had passed through the check post at Manjeswar where tax was also remitted. 2. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent seized the vehicle and took the same into possession. It is the case of the petitioner that Exts.P1 to P4 were produced before the 2nd respondent and that despite that the vehicle was not released. It is with this allegation, the writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to release the vehicle forthwith and to declare that the 1st respondent has no authority to adjudicate the issue. Counsel also relies on the judgment of this Court in WA No.1206/11, which according to the petitioner deals with the case of other three vehicles which were also seized by the 2nd respondent on the same day. WPC No. 22685/11 :2 : 3. However, instructions obtained by the learned Government Pleader shows that proceedings launched against the petitioner pursuant to the seizure of the vehicle are under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. It is also submitted that the matter has been reported to the Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned and that the Sub Divisional Magistrate is seized of the proceedings. 4. Thus, while the petitioner has not disclosed in the writ petition, the statutory provision, the violation of which is alleged against him, what is disclosed from the submission made by the learned Government Pleader is that such proceedings are under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. Once the factual position is found to be so, the statutory authority who has to deal with the issue is the Sub Divisional Magistrate, and it is for the Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned to conclude the enquiry and decide the issue. 5. In so far as the WA judgment is concerned, the Division Bench was not told nor has the Division Bench appreciated the case in the factual background of this case. I say so for the reason that if the Division Bench was told that the proceedings in WPC No. 22685/11 :3 : respect of the vehicles involved in the writ appeal were under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001, the Division Bench would certainly have directed the statutory authority, the Sub Divisional Magistrate to conclude the proceedings in relation to the vehicles involved in that case. On the other hand, the Division Bench considered the issue on the premise that the sand was imported from outside the State and it was in that background the Division Bench directed the District Collector to enquire into the matter in the manner as it is ordered in the judgment. 6. In this case, since it has come out from the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader that the proceedings are under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001, necessarily the matter has to be adjudicated by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, the Competent Authority. Therefore, I see no reason to direct the enquiry to be completed by the District Collector, who is the revisional authority under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, I direct that it will be open to WPC No. 22685/11 :4 : the petitioner to approach the Sub Divisional Magistrate and the Sub Divisional Magistrate shall conclude the adjudication into the case against the petitioner and the vehicle mentioned above. It is also directed that if the petitioner so desires, it will be open to the petitioner to apply for interim custody of vehicle, in which event, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, will pass orders applying the principle laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala [2010(3)KHC 333]. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp