IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 32697 of 2009(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MUSTHAFA, S/O.MARAKKAR, AGED 50 YRS, PARAVAKKAL HOUSE, KOTTARAM DESOM, VALANCHERY P.O., MALAPPURAM DT.(RC OWNER-KL-11-1960). BY ADV. SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, MALAPPURAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUTTIPPURAM POLICE STATION, KUTTIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM. BY GP SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J ------------------- W.P.(C).32697/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 17th day of November, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the registered owner of a goods vehicle that was seized under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 on the allegation that it was used to transport river sand without a valid pass. The petitioner thereupon moved the District Collector, Malappuram seeking interim custody of his vehicle. When interim custody was not granted, he filed W.P.(C). 26759 of 2009 in this Court. By Ext.P1 judgment delivered on 23.9.2009, this Court directed the District Collector to pass orders on the application for interim custody. The District Collector thereafter passed Ext.P2 order dated 24.10.2009 granting interim custody of the vehicle subject to the terms and conditions stipulated therein. One of the conditions is that the petitioner should produce a demand draft for Rs.35,000/- drawn in favour of the District Collector, Malappuram. The said stipulation in Ext.P2 order is under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner challenges the stipulation that he should produce a demand draft for the sum of Rs.35,000/- as an W.P.(C).32697/09 2 onerous condition. He submits that the petitioner is undergoing treatment for cancer and that he is not in a position to produce a demand draft of Rs.35,000/-. In my opinion, that by itself is not a reason to hold that the condition imposed by the District Collector in Ext.P2 is onerous. Ext.P2 order only enables the petitioner to obtain interim custody of the vehicle. The petitioner can, if he is not in a position to comply with the conditions stipulated in Ext.P2, decline to take interim custody of the vehicle and await final orders in the matter. This Court has in Ext.P1 judgment directed the District Collector to pass final orders in the matter within four months from 23.9.2009. Two months out of the said period of four months have already expired. In such circumstances, I find no grounds to entertain this writ petition. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. The District Collector shall pass final orders within the time stipulated by this Court in Ext.P1 judgment. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge mrcs