IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2011 / 8TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 2816 of 2011(B) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- RAJASEGHARA KURUP, S/O.RAMAKRISHNA KURUP AGED 49, SIVA SHYLAM, THOTTAKKONAM, PANDALAM P.O., PIN-689 501, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAKIR.K.H. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 501. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-691 523. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P (C) No.2816 of 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 28th January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims to be the owner of four canoes bearing registration Nos.5308 KQN, 5608 KQN, 5763 KQN and 5764 KQN. It is stated that the canoes were seized by the 1st respondent on the allegation that the same were used in violation of the provisions contained in Kerala Protection of River Banks (Protection and Regulation of removal of sand) Act, 2002. According to the petitioner, the 1st respondent ought to have released the canoes. But however, the canoes have not been released. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition has been filed. 2. Evidently, canoes have been seized on the allegation that the same were used in violation of the principles contained in the Kerala Protection of River Banks (Protection and Regulation of removal of sand) Act, 2002. Such proceedings should pending before the 2nd respondent, the authority competent under the Act. Therefore, if the petitioner want either interim custody of W.P (C) No.2816 of 2011 2 the canoes or finalisation of the proceedings, petitioner would have to approach the 2nd respondent and seek appropriate reliefs. 3. In that view of the matter, leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the 2nd respondent for finalisation of the proceedings and for interim custody thereof, it is directed that orders will be passed applying the principles laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala [2010(3)KHC 333] Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE ma /True copy/ P.A to Judge