IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 29TH AUGUST 2011 / 7TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 23449 of 2011(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.N.RAUF, S/O.MOOSA, AGED 30 YEARS, # 13/8 IIND,MAIN ROAD, KALASIPAYAM, NEW EXTN, BANGALORE-02. BY ADV. SRI.R.UDAYA KUMAR SRI.JACOB E SIMON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695001. 2. THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE KASARAGOD AT KANHANGAD, PIN 671315. 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KASARAGOD POLICE STATION, KASARGOD, PIN 671121, (CRIME NO.745/11). 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KASARAGOD, PIN 671121. SR GP SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 23449 of 2011 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE ABOVE SAID LORRY BEARING REGISTRATION NUMBER KA-01/D-4294 EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.745/11 KASARGOD POLICE STATION EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAX DATED 9.8.11 FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.1300 EXT.P4- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A.1206/11 (True copy) P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).23449/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 29th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner claims to be registered owner of a Lorry bearing registration No.KA-01/D-4294. According to the petitioner, he was engaged in the legitimate transportation of river sand from the State of Karnataka. It is stated that the third respondent seized the vehicle loaded with sand and initiated proceedings under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001, and the matter is pending consideration of the second respondent. It is at that stage, the writ petition has been filed with a declaration that proceedings under the Act cannot be initiated and the vehicle should be released to him. 2. In my view, to grant relief to the petitioner, the question as to whether transportation in question is in violation of the provisions of the Act should be adjudicated in the first instance. This necessarily requires adjudication of the disputed questions of fact which can be done only by the Revenue Divisional Officer and at this stage, it is premature for this Court to enter into the examination of the contentions raised. Therefore, the only order W.P.(C).23449/11 2 that can be passed at this stage, is to direct the Sub Divisional Magistrate to finalize the proceedings in respect of the petitioner's vehicle with notice to the parties concerned and in accordance with law. 3. It is clarified that in the meanwhile, if the petitioner is desirous of obtaining interim custody of the vehicle, it is open to him to make an application, in which event, same will be dealt with , in the light of the principles laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala [2010(3)KHC 333]. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs