IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2009 / 1ST SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 18965 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.K.JAFFAR, S/O. YOUSAF, AGED 40 YEARS, PULIKKAMATH KURIMANNIL HOUSE, ANAKKAYAM, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, MALAPPURAM. ADDL.R2. MR.RASHEDALI, S/O.ABDULLA, RESIDING AT PAPPADAN HOUSE, KADANKODE, PANTHALLUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. (ADDL.R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 16/7/2009 IN I.A.NO.8620/09 IN WP(c).NO.18965/09) GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No. 18965 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 23rd July,2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims to be an owner in possession of a Jeep bearing Reg. No.KL-10/2255. The registered owner of the vehicle is impleaded as additional 2nd respondent. The vehicle was allegedly seized for infraction of the provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Banks (Protection and Regulation of removal of sand) Act, 2002. He has approached the District Collector, the 1st respondent for release of the vehicle and is aggrieved by the non-consideration of his request as such. 2. The nature of the power exercised by the District Collector and the para meters within which such power is to be exercised have been dealt with by a Bench of this Court in Sanjayan Vs.Tahasildar [2007 (4) KLT 597). Principles have been reiterated in Subramanian Vs. State of Kerala [2009 (1) KLT 77). 3. In Subramanian's case, this Court observed W.P ( C) No. 18965 of 2009 2 that the power exercised by the District Collector is under Section 23 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks (Protection and Regulation of removal of sand) Act, 2002. It is also, therefore, quasi judicial in character. Reasons will have to be given by the District Collector while passing orders under Section 23 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks (Protection and Regulation of removal of sand) Act, 2002 r/w Rules 27 and 28 of Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Rules 2002. If there is a contention that the transportation of sand was supported by a pass issued by the competent local authority, that has to be referred. The materials which are placed before the District Collector by the subordinate officials shall also be looked into. This has been indicated in Subramanian's case. If motion is made by the owner of the vehicle for release of the vehicle on interim custody, it will be subject to the conditions mentioned in paragraph 58 of the said judgment. The District Collector may pass orders on such applications on interim custody. (The scope of the directions contained in W.P ( C) No. 18965 of 2009 3 Subramanian's case have later been dealt with in Sareesh Vs. District Collector [2009(2) KLT 906]. Appropriate clarifications have been issued in the latter case). Further conditions can be imposed in the course of release of the vehicle as indicated by this Court in Shoukathali Vs. Tahasildar [2009 (1) KLT 640]. 4. Keeping in mind the observations made in the judgments in Shoukathali's case and Subramanian's case and Sareesh's case which have been referred to, the 1st respondent shall pass final orders in the matter of confiscation/release of the vehicle in question after conducting an appropriate enquiry as early as possible, at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 5. In the meanwhile, if motion is made by the petitioner for interim custody of the vehicle bearing Reg. No.KL-10/2255 then orders shall be passed by the District Collector on the application for interim custody of the vehicle after notice to the registered owner and after hearing him, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a W.P ( C) No. 18965 of 2009 4 copy of this judgment 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 Sareesh Vs. District Collector [2009(2) KLT 906]. 6. I make it clear that I have not considered the petitioner's contentions on merits. It is up to the District Collector to consider whether the vehicle is to be released on interim custody or not. It is also up to the District Collector to consider, in accordance with law, the question as to whether the vehicle has been used in a manner as to contravene the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder and as to whether the vehicle is liable for confiscation and pass final orders on that basis. The writ petition is disposed of as above. The petitioner shall produce copies of the judgment in Subramanian, Shoukathali and Sareesh along with the certified copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent, for compliance. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No. 18965 of 2009 5 W.P ( C) No. 18965 of 2009 6 (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No. 18965 of 2009 7 W.P ( C) No. 18965 of 2009 8 (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No. 18965 of 2009 9 W.P ( C) No. 18965 of 2009 10 (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No. 18965 of 2009 11 W.P ( C) No. 18965 of 2009 12