IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2009 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 14319 of 2009(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SAREESH.T.V.,S/O.VISWANATHAN, AGED 28 YEARS,THATTARAVALAPPIL HOUSE, NAEIPARAMBU P.O.,KALADI VILLAGE,THAVANOOR VIA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.(AGREEMENT OWNER & POSSESSOR OF THE VEHICLE KL-9-P-7018) BY ADV. SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE,MALAPPURAM. 2. SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PONNANI POLICE STATION, PONNANI,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY GP SRI.P.N.SANTHOS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).14319/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 25th day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner claims to be the “agreement owner” and possessor of a Mini Lorry which was seized on 19.5.2009 for alleged illegal transportation of river sand. Petitioner has moved the District Collector for release of the vehicle on interim custody. Writ petition has been filed praying for a direction to the first respondent to pass orders on Ext.P2 application. 2. Learned Government Pleader submits that in very many cases where this Court has directed the District Collector to pass orders on the application for interim custody in the light of the judgment in Subramanian v. State of Kerala (2009 (1) KLT 77), the authorities had proceeded to pass orders for release of vehicle on interim custody and in many cases it seems that the vehicles are not seen thereafter. W.P.(C).14319/2009 2 3. I find it difficult to appreciate any such difficulty faced by the District Collectors. In Subramanian's case, this Court has not given any categoric direction for release of any vehicle on interim custody merely because an application is filed in that behalf. All that is stated is that when vehicles are seized for infraction of the provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001, and an enquiry under Section 23 of the said Act is found necessary and the same also entails time, then it will only be appropriate that the applications for interim custody of the vehicle are considered. That is intended to see that an enquiry conducted by the District Collector is not perfunctory and any order passed in that regard would ultimately stand a challenge against the same before this Court or other forum. For that matter, the power being exercised by the District Collectors in this regard has been held as quasi judicial. Therefore, such exercise of power could also be subjected to judicial review. In such W.P.(C).14319/2009 3 cases, it may not serve the purpose of any person, if the vehicles are lying exposed to sun and rain for a long period of time and therefore, the application for release of vehicle on interim custody may be considered. 4. It has been made clear in Subramanian's case that if the District Collectors, while considering the applications for interim custody of the vehicles feel that such vehicles can be released on interim custody, then they will be bound to impose conditions which are mentioned therein. This includes deposit of amount, and furnishing an undertaking as also conditions to the effect that the vehicles shall not be used for transportation of sand till the enquiry is over and a further condition that the vehicle shall not be permitted to be used outside the District concerned. A peremptory power to seize the vehicle if it is found contravening the provisions of the Act or the Rules or the conditions under which the interim custody is W.P.(C).14319/2009 4 granted is also vouchsafed in favour of the District Collectors and this has been reiterated in Subramanian. If this be so, then it is quite obvious that sufficient guidelines have been indicated by this Court, while dealing with the applications for interim custody of the vehicle. 5. Referring to Subramanian, this Court has in Shoukathali v. Tahsildar (2009 (1) KLT 640) indicated certain other conditions also while dealing with the applications for release of the vehicle. Obviously, the said directions are also expected to guide the District Collectors. 6. A direction by this Court to pass orders on the application for interim custody of the vehicle need not be treated by the District Collectors as one intended to govern the exercise of powers by the District Collectors, that is to say whether it should be released on custody or not. It is upto the authority concerned to exercise the power W.P.(C).14319/2009 5 legitimately and in accordance with law. They are not expected to read into the judgment or directions anything more than what is intended namely a direction to exercise the power conferred by the statute. 7. In these circumstances, I believe that the aforementioned observations should allay the apprehensions of the learned Government Pleader. 8. In the result, writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 in the light of the observations in Subramanian v. State of Kerala as also the observations made in this judgment, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs