IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH MAY 2010 / 29TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 14579 of 2010(V) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ MUNEER KOORIMANNIL, S/O. YOUSEFF KOORIMANNIL HOUSE, PERIMBALAM P.O., ANAKKAYAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL, SMT.AMBIKA RADHAKRISHNAN. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,MALAPPURAM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, ERNAD. 3. THE SECRETARY, ANAKKAYAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 14579 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner's vehicle has been seized on allegations of illegal transportation of river sand under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. Petitioner approached this court by filing W.P.(C) No.3070/2010, in which this court passed an interim order on 30.01.2010 as follows: Admit. Urgent notice. There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to release the vehicle if the petitioner remits an amount of Rs.45,000/- (Rupees forty five thousand only) and on execution of bond furnishing security for the balance amount to the satisfaction of the 1st respondent. 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 the registered owner that he will not cause any damage to the vehicle so as to reduce its value and utility. 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. Learned Government Pleader will make available the records of the case. The payment of the amount will be subject to the result of the writ petition. But instead of releasing the vehicle in accordance with the conditions therein the Deputy Collector (Election) passed W.P.(C)No. 14579 of 2010 -2- Ext.P5 order dated 9.4.2010 prescribing other conditions also in addition to the conditions prescribed by this court. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P5. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader who submits that those additional conditions mentioned in Ext.P5 are those prescribed by the Division Bench in District Collector, Malappuram v. Abdul Kasim (2010 (1) KLT SN 31 (C.No.38) and therefore there is nothing illegal in Ext.P5. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. Ext.P5 is passed by the Deputy Collector (Election). The Government Pleader has not been able to satisfy me that the Deputy Collector has any power to pass such an order. For that reason itself Ext.P5 is liable to be quashed. Apart from that when this court directed the District Collector to release the vehicle on specific conditions prescribed therein even the District Collector could not have passed another order prescribing some more conditions since he has not chosen to challenge Ext.P5. Therefore Ext.P5 is liable to be W.P.(C)No. 14579 of 2010 -3- quashed. I do so. Since the vehicle has already been released to the petitioner, I make it clear that the petitioner would be liable to comply with only those conditions prescribed in Ext.P5 order of this court. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE shg/