IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2008 / 23RD ASWINA 1930 W.A.No. 2028 of 2008 ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.29132/2008 DATED 30/09/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- L.DAVY WILBERT, DOOR NO.89, SAHARIA STREET, HENRY ROAD, KAMARAJAPURAM, REP. BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY K.J.JACOB, KOCHIKKATTIL, NANGIARKULANGARA. BY ADV. SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY REVENUE SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 3. THAHASILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, ADOOR. 4. S.I. OF POLICE, POLICE STATION, ADOOR. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------- W.ANo.2028 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 15th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. The vehicle bearing registration No.TN 74/L 4385 belonging to the appellant/petitioner is seized by the third respondent Tahsildar on the sole allegation that the petitioner has committed certain offences under the provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act. The grievance of the petitioner is that the third respondent could not have seized the vehicle and, therefore, has sought for a declaration to declare that the aforesaid order passed by the third respondent is illegal, invalid and wholly arbitrary and the other prayer in the writ petition is to direct the second respondent, namely, the District Collector, Pathanamthitta District to release the petitioner's vehicle. (2) Admittedly, the vehicle is seized by the Tahsildar on the premise that the vehicle in question is being used to carry river sand without there being any authorisation. After such seizure, the Tahsildar or the authorities under the Act are expected to pass on the necessary information and the papers to the District Collector to pass appropriate orders under the provisions of Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act. W.A.No.2028 of 2008 2 (3) The learned Single Judge in his order has only directed the Tahsildar to pass on the information and the papers to the District Collector and further has directed the District Collector to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act as expeditiously as possible. (4) In our opinion, if the appellant has got all the documents which are necessary to carry the river sand, he will be at liberty to produce the same before the District Collector and if such documents are produced, we do not think that the District Collector will ignore those documents and still pass an order under Rule 27(3) of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Rules. (5) In that view of the matter, we do not see any good ground to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the writ appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE vns