IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 18TH MAY 2010 / 28TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 14701 of 2010(K) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- K.AHAMMED, S/O.ABDULLA, AGED 60 YEARS, KURIKKALAKATH HOUSE, NEW NADUIL AMSOM DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR (DIST). BY ADV. SRI.P.BABU RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE, KANNUR. BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 14701 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner's vehicle has been seized on allegation of unauthorized transportation of river sand. No final orders have been passed by the respondent-District Collector. He is stated to have obtained a valuation report from the Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector, as per which the value of the vehicle is Rs.1,50,000/-. The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is that for interim custody of the vehicle the respondent is insisting on payment of the value of the vehicle namely Rs.1,50,000/- which according to the petitioner is against the principles laid down by the Division Bench decision of this court in District Collector, Malappuram v. Abdul Kasim (2010 (1) KLT SN 31 (C. No.38). He submits that he is entitled to release of the vehicle on the conditions stipulated in the said decision. W.P.(C)No. 14701 of 2010 -2- 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. In Abdul Kasim's case the short note relied on by the petitioner reads thus: “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 the vehicles that may be involved in such cases. The vehicle shall be released to the 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. 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 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.” 3. In the above circumstances, I am satisfied that the respondent is bound to give interim custody of the vehicle on the condition stipulated by the Division Bench in the above said decision. Accordingly there would be a direction to the respondent to give interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner, on the petitioner depositing an W.P.(C)No. 14701 of 2010 -3- amount of Rs.75,000/- and executing a bond furnishing security for the balance amount to the satisfaction of the respondent. The petitioner 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. The petitioner shall also produce proof of ownership of the vehicle. I make it clear that the above direction would be applicable only if final orders have not yet been passed. S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE shg/