IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2010 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 10447 of 2010(E) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- SHAMON P.S., AGED 34, SHAHUL, PANACHIYIL HOUSE, ERUMELI P.O., KOTTAYAM DIST. BY ADV. MR.P.A.MOHAMMED SHAH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM. 2. SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERUMELI, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.10447 OF 2010 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF MARCH, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner, the registered owner of a 1993 model Tata 608 Mini Lorry, is aggrieved by Exhibit P7 order passed by the District Collector, whereby in terms of the proceedings pending under Act 18 of 2001, interim custody has been ordered. As per Exhibit P7 order, the value of the vehicle has been fixed at Rs.80,000/- and the petitioner is directed to remit half of such amount and to furnish security bond for the balance amount as a condition for releasing the vehicle. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the vehicle was covered by a valid pass; i.e, Exhibit P2 at the time of transport of the sand and it is therefore submitted that the petitioner is not at all liable for any action under the said Act. It is pointed out that the District Collector has not considered anything on the merits of the case pleaded by the petitioner, while directing release of the W.P.(C)No.10447/10 -2- vehicle and by imposing these conditions. 3. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the question whether the petitioner is liable or not can be considered only at the stage of final disposal of the matter and what is now considered is only the prayer for interim custody and therefore there is nothing for this Court to interfere at this stage. 4. This Court by judgment in W.P.(C)No.6364/10 dated 3.3.2010 directed 1st respondent to verify the documents produced by the petitioner as per Exhibits P2 to P4. The issue will have to be considered obviously in detail, after hearing the petitioner also and what is considered now by the 1st respondent is only the request for release of the vehicle by way of interim custody. 5. Therefore, I do not see any reason to interfere with the order passed by the District Collector. It is upto the petitioner to get the release of the vehicle by complying with the conditions. But, it is made clear that the plea raised by the petitioner with regard to the legal transportation of sand based on Exhibits P2 to P4 will be considered before passing final orders W.P.(C)No.10447/10 -3- and the petitioner will be offered a personal hearing also. The final order will be passed within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE dsn