IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 20TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 4136 of 2009(P) ------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- MUNEER KOORIMANNIL, S/O.YOUSEFF, KOORIMANNIL HOUSE, PERIMBALAM P.O., ANAKKAYAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY MR.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL, ADVOCATE. MS.AMBIKA RADHAKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, PERINTHALMANNA. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANJERI. BY MR.P.N.SANTHOSH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/02/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.4136 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 9th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a registered owner of a lorry bearing Regn.No.KL-10/Y-8638. Admittedly, thrice proceedings were initiated against the vehicle under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 resulting in adverse orders finding the involvement of the vehicle in unauthorised transportation of river sand. 2. Finally, as can be seen from Ext.P5 mahazar, the vehicle was seized by the 2nd respondent invoking the provisions contained in the Kerala Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007. The petitioner, says that he filed Ext.P7 objection. However, by Ext.P8 order, the 1st respondent upheld the search and seizure and ordered that the vehicle will be released to the owner, if he remits an amount of Rs.1 lakh within 7 days. It is this order, which is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. The only contention raised is regarding the unreasonableness of the amount ordered to be remitted. WP(C) No.4136/2009 -2- 4. Having regard to the fact that the vehicle is a 2004 model vehicle and the value thereof, I am not in a position to accept the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Further the amount is not unreasonable for the reason that on three occasions, the vehicle in question has been found to have violated the provisions contained in the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. 5. If the vehicle is not already confiscated, I direct that the petitioner will be granted two weeks time from today to remit the amount fixed in the impugned order, and that if the petitioner remits the amount within two weeks from today, the vehicle will be released. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg