IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2010 / 6TH SRAVANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 1859 of 2010() ------------------------- CMP.1431/2010 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PERUMBAVOOR .................... PETITIONER(S): CLAIM PETITIONER ------------------------------- VISWAMBHARAN, AGED 41, S/O.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ARAYIDATH VEEDU, KUZHIKATTUKARA, PUTHENVRUZ VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENT(S): STATE OF KERALA ------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KREALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR C.S.HRITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.RAMKUMAR, J. --------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.1859 of 2010 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of July, 2010 ORDER The petitioner herein who claims to be the owner of a Tata Tipper Lorry bearing registration No.KL-40-8961 challenges Annexure-II order passed by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Perumbavoor dismissing his application filed as C.M.P.No.1431 of 2010 for interim custody of the tipper lorry. According to the petitioner the vehicle was being used for transporting mud to fill up a paddy land. The vehicle was seized by the Perumbavoor Police for the alleged infraction of the Land Utilisation Order. Since the lorry was used for transporting earth for filling up a paddy land without the requisite permission and since no crime was registered either under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 (Sand Act) or the Minor Mineral Concession Rules or the Mines and Crl.M.C.No.1859/2010 : 2 : Minerals Development Act, the vehicle was placed at the disposal of the District Collector. Hence, the learned Magistrate did not grant interim custody of the vehicle which was not produced before the Magistrate. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the District Collector has already heard the matter and orders are awaited. In case the order passed by the District Collector is adverse to the interests of the petitioner he will be at liberty to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings. Reserving the above right of the petitioner this Crl.M.C. is closed. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE skj