IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 8TH ASWINA 1933 WA.No. 1403 of 2011 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.24635/2011 Dated 19/09/2011 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------------------- K. BASHEER, S/O. USSAN, PIRALIKULAMKATTIL HOUSE, P.O. PULAMANTHOLE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------- 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PERINTHALMANNA-679 322. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLATHUR POLICE STATION-679 320. BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER,SRI.BENNY GERVACIS. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A. No. 1403 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT Ramachandra Menon, J. The vehicle belonging to the appellant was seized alleging offence under the Kerala Protection of River Banks & Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 in respect of illegal transportation of river sand. 2. In the proceedings followed, the vehicle was ordered to be confiscated by the competent authority under the Act, pursuant to which the appellant has been served with notice to satisfy the amount as specified therein, stated as the market value of the vehicle concerned, as payable to the 'River Management Fund', if at all the appellant wanted to have the vehicles redeemed, in place of confiscation. 3. Met with the situation, the appellant approached this Court by filing the writ petition stating that he did not intend to challenge the orders passed by the concerned authority and that the only relief sought before this Court was to have the W.A. No. 1403 of 2011 -:2:- benefit of instalment for satisfying the liability mulcted upon him. Interference was declined and the writ petition was dismissed holding that there is no provision under the Statute, which hence is under challenge in these appeals. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 4. After considering the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the interest of the 'Revenue' can be protected by directing the appellant to furnish security on enabling him to have the liability discharged in a phased manner. 5. Accordingly, the liability cast upon the appellant will stand permitted to be cleared by way of 'six' equal monthly instalments, the first of which shall be remitted forthwith, at any rate within two weeks and the rest shall be remitted on or before the last working day of the succeeding months. Subject to this, the recovery proceedings shall be kept in abeyance for the time being. On satisfaction of 50% of the total amount, the vehicle shall be released to the appellant on condition that the appellant W.A. No. 1403 of 2011 -:3:- furnishes security by way of immovable property for the due amount to the satisfaction of the respondent concerned. 6. It is further made clear that, if the appellant indulges in any repeated offence of similar nature, the vehicle shall be seized and the custody shall not be released to the appellant, under any circumstance. Writ Appeal is disposed of as above. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge. ttb