IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2009 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 14722 of 2009(I) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SAIDU, S/O.KHADER, MOONANGADI, P.P.KARA, POST KOOTTAYI, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, TIRUR. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TIRUR. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.P.N. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.14722 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 28th May,2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims to be the owner of a Mini Lorry bearing Reg.No.KL-11-K 5148 which was seized on 5.5.2009 when it was transporting river sand. According to the Petitioner, the sand was being transported with the aid of a valid permit. Subsequent to the seizure, the petitioner moved the concerned Magistrate with an application for release of the vehicle, which was dismissed. Petitioner is aggrieved that no further steps have been taken in the matter of release of the vehicle. 2. When the vehicle is seized, the same will have to be produced before the District Collector who will have to proceed in terms of Section 23 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act read with Rules 27 and 28 of the Rules. It is up to the petitioner to approach the District Collector for release of the petitioner's vehicle, which has not been done so far. W.P ( C) No.14722 of 2009 2 2. In the result, it is ordered that if the petitioner files an application before the District Collector for release of the vehicle, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law in the light of the observations contained in Shoukathali Vs. Tahasildar [2009 (1) KLT 640, Subramanian Vs. State of Kerala [2009 (1) KLT 77) and the judgment in WPC No.14319 of 2009. Final orders shall be passed within three months. But if an application for interim custody of the vehicle is filed, it shall be dealt with and orders shall be passed subject to the conditions indicated in Shoukathali Vs. Tahasildar [2009 (1) KLT 640, Subramanian Vs. State of Kerala [2009 (1) KLT 77) and the judgment in WPC No.14319 of 2009 within three weeks from the date on which the application is filed. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.14722 of 2009 3 W.P ( C) No.14722 of 2009 4