IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI SATURDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2009 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 14119 of 2009(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SHANU,S/O.ABDUL REHMAN,AGED 36 YEARS, POOLAKKAL HOUSE,PEROOR POST,OTTAPALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,PALAKKAD CIVIL STATION,PALAKKAD. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,OTTAPALAM POLICE STATION,OTTAPALAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).14119 of 2009 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the registered owner of a Mini Lorry bearing registration No.KL- 51/7883, which was seized on the allegation that it was being used for illegal transportation of sand by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner submits that no crime as such has been registered against his vehicle. Therefore, he approached the 2nd respondent for release of the vehicle. But, he was told that the entire papers regarding the seizure has been forwarded to the 1st respondent. 2. The nature of the power exercised by the District Collector and the parameters within which such power is to be exercised have been dealt with by a Bench of this Court in Sanjayan Vs.Tahasildar [2007 (4) KLT 597. Principles have been reiterated in Subramanian Vs. State of Kerala [2009 (1) KLT 77). W.P.(C).14119 of 2009 :: 2 :: 3. In Subramanian's case, this Court observed that the power exercised by the District Collector is under Section 23 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks (Protection and Regulation of removal of sand) Act, 2002. It is also, therefore, quasi judicial in character. Reasons will have to be given by the District Collector while passing orders under Section 23 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks (Protection and Regulation of removal of sand) Act, 2002 r/w Rules 27 and 28 of Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Rules 2002. If there is a contention that the transportation of sand was supported by a pass issued by the competent local authority, that has to be referred. The materials which are placed before the District Collector by the subordinate officials shall also be looked into. This has been indicated in Subramanian's case. If motion is made by the owners of the vehicle for release of the vehicle on interim custody, it will be subject to the conditions W.P.(C).14119 of 2009 :: 3 :: mentioned in paragraph 58 of the said judgment. The District Collector may pass orders on such applications on interim custody. Further conditions can be imposed in the course of release of the vehicle as indicated by this Court in Shoukathali Vs. Tahasildar [2009 (1) KLT 640]. 4. Keeping in mind the observations made in the judgments in Shoukathali's case and Subramanian's case and other judgments which have been referred to, the 1st respondent in this case shall pass final orders in the matter of confiscation/release of the vehicle in question after conducting an appropriate enquiry, as early as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 5. In the meanwhile, if motion is made by the petitioner for interim custody of the vehicle, then orders shall be passed by the District Collector on the application for interim custody of the vehicle, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of W.P.(C).14119 of 2009 :: 4 :: this judgment, in the light of the observations contained in Shoukathali Vs. Tahasildar [2009 (1) KLT 640 and Subramanian Vs. State of Kerala [2009 (1) KLT 77). The writ petition is disposed of as above. The petitioner shall produce copies of the judgment in Subramanian and Shoukathali along with the certified copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent, for compliance. Sd/- (V.GIRI) Judge sk/- //true copy// P.S. to Judge