IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2008 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 37036 of 2008(H) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER : ---------------- ANILKUMAR, S/O.RAJAN NAIR, KOCHUMELETHIL HOUSE, KANJEETTUKARA P.O., AYROOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND RESPONDENTS : ------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, RANNI. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, RANNI POLICE STATION, RANNI. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.37036 OF 2008 ------------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT The vehicle belonging to the petitioner was taken into custody by the 2nd respondent for infraction of the provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 (for short “Sand Act”). The matter is now pending before the District Collector. A representation has been moved by the petitioner as Ext.P3 for release of the vehicle. 2. The District Collector is competent to exercise the powers under Section 23 of the Sand Act. The exercise of power by the District Collector has been dealt with in detail in a batch of writ petitions (W.P.(C) No.15847 of 2008 & connected cases). Paragraphs 56 and 57 of the judgment read as follows : “ 56. In many cases, the orders are purely mechanical, referring only to the seizure of the vehicle and reporting to the District Collector. There is no consideration of the objections. W.P.(C) 37036 of 2008 2 No scientific or rational method has been adopted in fixing the price of the vehicle. It should also be remembered that a direction to the owner of the vehicle to remit an amount equal to the price of the lorry, does not mean that the amount to be so remitted is fixed irrespective of the question as to whether the offence detected is a first offence or whether a recurring one. It is here that the District Collector should remember that the power which is exercised under Section 23 of the Act read with Rules 27 and 28 is a substantive power that could result in a person forfeiting his property. 57. It is keeping in mind the impact of the power exercised by the District Collector that they should proceed to consider the objections and then pass the order in terms of Rules 27 and 28 of the Rules. I also take note of the submissions of the learned counsel for the W.P.(C) 37036 of 2008 3 petitioners that the Sand Act does not provide for an appeal against the order passed by the District Collector under Rule 27 or 28 of the Rules. Analogous provisions dealing with the infraction of the provisions under the Forest Act or the Abkari Act, which obviously have a similar kind of impact on the society, should be recalled. An order of confiscation passed under the Forest Act is vulnerable to an appeal before no less an authority than a District Judge and the same can be challenged in revision before this court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. An order of confiscation under the Abkari Act is also vulnerable to an appeal and revision before the competent court. The absence of such a provision in the Sand Act obviously is no indication that the provision relating to confiscation under the Sand Act can be exercised in a casual manner. In fact, it should W.P.(C) 37036 of 2008 4 impress the authority, who is conferred with the power, that he is required to do so, applying his mind and acting as a quasi judicial authority. ” 3. I have also held that in appropriate cases it is open to the District Collector to release the vehicle on interim custody subject to the conditions that have been laid in the said judgment. Having heard learned Government Pleader also, writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to pass final orders as regards the seizure/release of the vehicle KL-7/C 6997 within 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment, in the light of the directions issued in W.P.(C) No.15847 of 2008. If the petitioner files an application for interim custody of the vehicle within 2 weeks from today, orders shall be passed thereon, in the light of the directions issued in the same judgment. V.GIRI, JUDGE pac