IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2010 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1932 WA.No. 536 of 2010 ------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.5843/2010 DATED 24.2.2010 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ K.M.ABDUL AZEEZ, S/O. MUHAMMED, KOORIMANNIL MELEMANNIL HOUSE, PADINJATTUMURI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/03/2010 ALONG WITH WA NO.538/2010 & CONNECTED MATTERS, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Raman, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A. Nos.536, 538, 539, 540 & 541 of 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT J.Chelameswar, C.J. All these writ appeals are preferred against the various judgments passed in different writ petitions. The question involved in all those writ petitions is common. Each of the appellants happens to be the owners of goods vehicles registered in the State of Kerala. On the allegation that these vehicles were found plying in violation of some of the provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001, each of these vehicles were seized and appropriate proceedings under the abovementioned Act are initiated. Under Section 23 of the abovementioned Act, the said vehicles are even liable for confiscation in an appropriate case. W.A.No.536 of 2010, etc. - 2 - 2. In view of the pendency of the proceedings against each one of the vehicles, the owners of the vehicles approached the concerned District Collector for interim release of the vehicle so seized and in each of these cases, interim release of the vehicle was ordered by the District Collector subject to the condition that the owners should deposit certain amount. For example, in the context of W.A.No.536 of 2010, the condition was that the owner should deposit an amount of Rs.80,000/-. 3. Aggrieved by the condition so imposed and pleading that this is an onerous condition, each of the appellants approached this Court by filing different writ petitions. A learned Judge of this Court declined to interfere with the condition so imposed and hence the present appeals. 4. Heard Sri.Babu S.Nair, learned counsel for the appellants and Smt.K.Meera, learned Senior Government Pleader W.A.No.536 of 2010, etc. - 3 - appearing for the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the condition imposed by the District Collector with regard to the deposit is an onerous condition and, therefore, the same is liable to be relaxed. 6. We are unable to accept this submission. Admittedly, the amount called upon to be deposited with reference to each of the vehicles is certainly much less than the value of the vehicle itself. As already indicated above, in an appropriate case, the vehicle is even liable for confiscation and if so confiscated, the owner would lose the entire value of the vehicle. In the circumstances, calling upon the owners to deposit a part of the value of the vehicle for interim release of the vehicle pending the adjudication proceedings, in our view, cannot be termed as imposition of an onerous condition. W.A.No.536 of 2010, etc. - 4 - We do not see any reason to interfere with the judgments under appeals. All these writ appeals are, therefore, dismissed at the admission stage. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice P.R.Raman, Judge vns