IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2009 / 14TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 27969 of 2009(M) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- ABDUL AZEEZ, S/O.MAMMU, CHALIL HOUSE, OMASSERY, PUTHOOR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THAMARASSERY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.P.N. SANTHOSH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/10/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P.N.RAVINDRAN,J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.27969 of 2009 - M ---------------------------------------- Dated 6th October, 2009 Judgment The petitioner is the registered owner of a mini lorry bearing registration No.KL/5D - 7765. The said vehicle was seized by the second respondent Sub Inspector of Police on 26.9.2009 and produced before the District Collector, Kozhikode on the allegation that it was used to transport river sand without a valid pass. The petitioner submits that his vehicle was used to transport river sand which was covered by Ext.P2 pass. The petitioner submits that after the vehicle was seized and produced before the second respondent it is lying exposed to the elements of nature. He submits that till date no prosecution has been initiated against him under section 20 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 and therefore the District Collector has no jurisdiction to retain custody of his vehicle. Relying on the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in Ahammedkutty v. State of Kerala (2008 W.P.(C) No.27969/2009 -:2:- (1) KLT 1068), it is contended that the petitioner's vehicle cannot be confiscated unless he is successfully prosecuted for the offence punishable under section 20 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to forthwith release the vehicle bearing registration No. KL/5D - 7765 to him by way of interim custody. 2. A Division Bench of this Court has by judgment delivered on 29.9.2009 in W.P.(C) Nos. 26073 of 2009 and connected cases overruled the decision of the learned single Judge in Ahammedkutty v. State of Kerala (2008 (1) KLT 1068) and held that even without successful prosecution of owners of goods vehicles used to transport river sand illegally and without a pass, the vehicles can be proceeded against and confiscated. In the light of the authoritative pronouncement of the Division Bench of this Court, the petitioner cannot be heard to contend that his vehicle can be confiscated only after he is successfully prosecuted. W.P.(C) No.27969/2009 -:3:- 3. From the pleadings and reliefs sought for in the writ petition, it is evident that what the petitioner seeks is interim custody of his vehicle. A learned single Judge of this Court has in Subramanian v. State of Kerala (2009 (1) KLT 77) while upholding the constitutional validity of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 held that the District Collector has the power to direct release of any vehicle which is seized and produced before him by way of interim custody. In such circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions: (i) The District Collector, Kozhikode shall, within seven days from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment, grant interim custody of the vehicle to him, on such terms and conditions as the District Collector may deem fit to impose; (ii) The District Collector, Kozhikode shall pass final orders in the proceedings, if any, initiated by him under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 and the Rules framed thereunder within three months from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this W.P.(C) No.27969/2009 -:4:- judgment before him, after notice to and affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The petitioner’s contentions on the merits are kept open. P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge vaa