IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 5689 of 2010(I) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SUPRAN, AGED 42 YEARS,S/O.VELAYUDHAN, PADINAJAREPUTHUKKATTIL HOUSE,MANAKUNNAM VILLAGE, KANAYANOOR TALUK,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SIRAJ KAROLY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION,KAKKANAD,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THRIPUNITHURA HILL PALACE POLICE STATION, THRIPUNITHURA.P.O,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 5689 of 2010 I ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the registered owner and in possession of a mini tipper lorry bearing registration No.KL-39A- 849. Ext.P1 is the copy of the relevant page of the registration certificate produced in support of the above plea. 2. It is averred in the writ petition that the vehicle was used for transport of building materials including bricks, cement, sand, etc. on hire. On 19-12-2009 at about 8.15 a.m. while the said vehicle was transporting ordinary sand from K.S.Mangalam to Ernakulam via Thripunithura, it was intercepted by the Sub Inspector of Police, the second respondent herein. According to the petitioner, the driver of the vehicle produced the statutory pass which was kept in the cabin(Ext.P2). It is alleged that the second respondent seized the vehicle and reported the seizure to the first respondent for initiation of proceedings under the provisions of Kerala Protection of River Bank and Removal of Sand(Regulation) Act, 2001. After awaiting suitable action for a number of days, the WPC.5689/2010 : 2 : petitioner approached the first respondent, District Collector, by Ext.P3 request for release of the vehicle by way of interim custody pending further action. The same was disposed of by Ext.P4. Thereby, the vehicle has been ordered to be released on fulfilling certain conditions. 3. The District Collector while passing the order relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench in W.A.No.2578 of 2009 for imposing various conditions. After getting the details of the value of the vehicle from the Regional Transport Officer, the value of the vehicle has been shown in Ext.P4 as Rs.5,50,000/-. The District Collector, hence, directed the petitioner to remit a sum of Rs.2,75,000/- in the River Management Fund and to submit a bond for the balance amount. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the direction to remit the amount of Rs.2,75,000/- is arbitrary. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. The learned Government Pleader brought to my notice that in the light of the directions issued by the Division Bench in W.A.No.2578 of 2009, there is nothing wrong in WPC.5689/2010 : 3 : the District Collector prescribing the said condition for releasing the vehicle. For convenience, I extract paragraph 7 of the judgment in W.A.No.2578 of 2009 as follows:- “ 7. Having regard to the fact that large number of cases involving illegal transportation of sand in violation of the provisions contained in Kerala Protection of River Banks & Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001, we are of the view that following guidelines/directions have to be issued with regard to the release of vehicles that may be involved in such cases. (i) The vehicle shall be released to the registered owner on his depositing half of the total value of the vehicle as may be assessed by the Assistant Executive Engineer(Mechanical), PWD as provided under Rule 4 of the Kerala Abkari(Disposal of Confiscated Articles) Rules, 1996 or the Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector. (ii) The registered owner shall execute a bond furnishing security for the balance amount to the satisfaction of the District Collector concerned. He shall further undertake to produce the vehicle as and when directed and also not to transfer/alienate the vehicle pending the proceedings. It shall also be undertaken by WPC.5689/2010 : 4 : the registered owner that he will not cause any damage to the vehicle so as to reduce its value and utility. (iii) If the vehicle gets involved in a similar offence after such release, it shall be liable to immediate seizure, in which event it shall not be released until finalisation of the proceedings.” In the light of the above direction issued by the Division Bench, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in Ext.P4 order passed by the District Collector. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. This judgment will not stand in the way of the District Collector passing final orders in respect of the proceedings pending before him, within two months, after hearing the petitioner and after assessing the various materials produced by the petitioner. No costs. Sd/- (T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) aks