IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 5TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 14TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 31461 of 2009(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ABDUL KHADER, S/O.KOYA, ALLUKKAL HOUSE, PERUNTHALLOR.P.O, VETTOM PALLIPPURAM AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE S.I OF POLICE, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 31461 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Heard Sri. Jamsheed Hafiz, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. P.N.Santhosh, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is the owner of a goods vehicle bearing registration No.KL-10-5049. The said vehicle was seized by the Sub Inspector of Police, Tirur, and produced before the District Collector, Malappuram, on 22.10.2009 on the allegation that it was used to transport river sand without a valid pass. The grievance voiced by the petitioner in this writ petition is that though he had requested the respondents orally to release the vehicle by way of interim custody, till date, interim custody has not been granted. He submits that if pending final orders on the proceedings initiated by the District Collector the vehicle is exposed to the elements of nature, it will deteriorate resulting in irreparable loss to him. On these grounds the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to release the vehicle to him by way of interim custody. 3. A learned single Judge of this Court has in Subramanian W.P.(C) No. 31461/09 2 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. The pleadings disclose that the petitioner has not moved the District Collector in written seeking interim custody of his vehicle. In my opinion in the light of the decision of this Court in Subramanian v. State of Kerala (2009 (1) KLT 77) the petitioner ought to have moved the District Collector in writing instead of seeking the intervention of this Court. I accordingly dispose of this writ petition with the following directions: (i) The District Collector, Malappuram, shall in the event of the petitioner filing an appropriate petition before him seeking interim custody of the vehicle, grant interim custody on such terms and conditions as he may deem fit to impose. (ii) The District Collector shall, within three months from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment before him, pass final orders in the proceedings initiated by W.P.(C) No. 31461/09 3 him under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 and the rules framed therein after notice to and affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The District Collector shall after orders are passed, communicate a copy thereof to the petitioner expeditiously. The contentions of the petitioner on the merits are kept open. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE vps