IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2011 / 24TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1390 of 2011(W) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- M.M.SALIM,S/O.MAHMOOD,224, KOODARAM, 4, VADAKKUMBHAGAM,KAZHAKUTTAM, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.A.AHZAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,COLLECTORATE, TRIVANDRUM. 2. TAHSILDAR,TALUK OFFICE ,TRIVANDRUM - 695 001. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THUMBA POLICE STATION,THUMBA,TRIVANDRUM- 695 001.. 4. ADDITIONAL SUB DIVISIOINAL MAGISTRATE, COLLECTORATE, TRIVANDRUM- 695 001.. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 1390 of 2011 W ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 14th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the owner of TATA 407 lorry bearing registration No.KL-22-1534. Proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 and final order was passed. That order was challenged before this Court in W.P.(C) No.30842/2010. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P5 judgment, directing that the Sub Divisional Magistrate shall reconsider the matter. It was also clarified that it will be open to the petitioner to seek interim custody of the vehicle. According to the petitioner, based on the judgment, he filed Ext.P6 representation, seeking orders in the matter and also for interim custody of the vehicle. Petitioner complains that despite the lapse of almost three months, final orders have not been passed nor has the vehicle been released to the petitioner. It is W.P.(C) No.1390/2011 : 2 : complaining of the above, this writ petition has been filed. 2. Obviously, an inordinate delay has already been occurred. Therefore, it is necessary that the fourth respondent should consider the matter and pass final orders in the matter. 3. Having regard to the long lapse of time, I direct that on the production of a copy of this judgment, the fourth respondent should give interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner imposing sufficient safeguards as he deems necessary in the matter, in the light of the principles laid down in Shan C.T. Vs. State of Kerala [2010 (3) KHC 333]. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. To Judge