IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 8TH DECEMBER 2011 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 32633 of 2011(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAJAN, AGED 49 YEARS, SON OF BALAKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT THOTTIYIL HOUSE, VENGAKADAVU, SHOLAYAR, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR SRI.MANU GOVIND SRI.V.H.NOUFALMON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AGALI POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.678 001. 2. THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.679 001. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.678 001. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED SHAH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.32633/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF VEHICLE NO. KL 10 K 6390. EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHAZAR ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT PURSUANT TO SEIZURE OF THE VEHICLE MENTIONED IN EXHIBIT P1 ON 31/10/2011. EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 15/11/2011 MADE BY THE PETITIONER SEEKING INTERIM CUSTODY OF THE VEHICLE MENTIONED IN EXHIBIT P1 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT WITH COPY TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4- TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.J 8024/2011 DATED 14/11/2011. EXHIBIT P5- TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 20/11/2011 SENT BY THE PETITIONER IN RESPONSE TO EXHIBIT P4 SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 32633 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 8th day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T In this Writ Petition, the petitioner complains that his vehicle bearing Regn.No.KL-10 K 6390 has been detained on the allegation that the vehicle was used for transportation of river sand in violation of the provisions contained in the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. According to the petitioner, though he has made application for interim custody of the vehicle, his application was not considered. With this grievance, this Writ Petition has been filed. 2. A Full Bench of this Court in Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala [2010(3)KHC 333] has laid down the manner in which such applications for interim custody should be dealt with. Therefore, all that is necessary in this Writ Petition is to direct that the statutory authority, before whom the application has been made, shall deal with the application in the light of the provisions of the Act referred above and in the manner as directed by the Full Bench of this Court in the judgment referred as above. WPC No.32633/11 :2 : 3. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the Writ Petition before the concerned authority for appropriate action. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp //True Copy// PA to Judge