IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2011 / 29TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 19728 of 2011(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- GOVINDAN KUTTY @ ANIYAN, S/O. KUNJUNNI NAIR, AGED 45 YEARS, VADAKKE KALATHIL HOUSE, KOLATHUR P.O., PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 037. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, OFFICE OF REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PERINTHALMANNA-676 606. 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KOLATHUR POLICE STATION, KOLATHUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 338. GP SRI. HANIL KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 19728 of 2011 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHAZAR PREPARED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 28.5.11 EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-1, PERINTHALMANNA DATED 24.6.11 IN CMP NO.2144/11 EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT (True Copy) P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).19728/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 20th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT 1.Petitioner complains that his vehicle bearing registration No.KL-11-Y/9072 has been detained on the allegation that the vehicle was used for transportation of river sand in violation of the provisions contained in the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. According to the petitioner, though he has made Ext.P3 petition before the second respondent, the same was not considered. With this grievance, the writ petition has been filed. 2.A Full Bench of this Court in Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala [2010(3)KHC 333] has laid down the manner in which such applications for interim custody should be dealt with. Therefore, all that is necessary in the Writ Petition is to direct that the statutory authority, before whom Ext.P3 petition has been made, shall deal with the same in the light of the provisions of the Act referred above and in the W.P.(C).19728/11 2 manner as directed by the Full Bench of this Court in the judgment referred as above. 3.The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the Writ Petition before the concerned authority for appropriate action. Writ petition is disposed of. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs