IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 28TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 30600 of 2011(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ MUHAMMAD SALIM, MADEENA MANZIL, ANARI.P.O., CHERUTHANA, HARIPAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR SRI.K.N.SATHEESAN SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, HARIPAD POLICE STATIN, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. SR.GOVT.PLEADER SMT.M.J.RAJASREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.30600/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE SEIZURE OF THE PETITIONER'S VEHICLE. EXT.P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.28716 OF 2011 L DATED 28-10-2011 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 30600 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 28th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T According to the petitioner, he is the registered owner of a lorry bearing Regn.No.KL-29 A 281. The first respondent seized the vehicle on 30/10/11 alleging offences under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and made a report to the 2nd respondent. It is in the circumstances, the writ petition has been filed seeking orders for release of the vehicle. 2. However, learned Government Pleader who has obtained instructions in the matter submits that at the time of seizure, the vehicle was carrying river sand and that by mistake, the proceedings initiated comes under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. It is also submitted that report was made to the RDO and that the vehicle is kept by the 1st respondent. 3. If as stated by the learned Government Pleader, what was transported by the vehicle in question was river sand, necessarily, proceedings initiated should be under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, WPC No. 30600/11 :2 : 2001, and it should be on that basis report has to be made to the 2nd respondent. 4. Therefore, I direct that, on the production of a copy of this judgment, 1st respondent will initiate fresh proceedings against the vehicle in question under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 and on that basis a report should be made to the 2nd respondent, the competent authority under the said Act. This shall be done without any further delay. It is also made clear that once report is made as above, it will be open to the petitioner to apply to the 2nd respondent for interim custody of the vehicle, in which event, orders will be passed by the 2nd respondent applying the principles laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala [2010(3)KHC 333]. All contentions of the petitioner are left open. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp