IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2010 / 27TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 30964 of 2010(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- SHAMLA BEEVI, AGED 46 YEARS, W/O.MR.SHAJAHAN, RESIDING AT PANDARA VILA VEEDU, VASUDEVAPURAM, AYILAM, ATTINGAL-695 103, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.MAJEED SRI.K.H.ASIF SRI.R.S.PARAMESWARAN RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ATTINGAL POLICE STAITON, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.30964 OF 2010(U) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T After the judgment was dictated on 8th October, 2010, this case is posted for `spoken to' at the request of the counsel for the petitioner. According to him, even going by the allegations contained in Exts.P3 and P4, what was found in his Mini Lorry bearing registration No.KL-16 F 6661 was not river sand and therefore the proceedings now initiated by the respondents under the Kerala protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 is without jurisdiction. 2. However, on instructions learned Government Pleader submits that, the sand mentioned in Exts.P3 and P4 was nothing but river sand and therefore proceedings initiated against the vehicle and the petitioner is under the River Sand Act. It is also submitted that proceedings are now been forwarded to the Sub Divisional Magistrate the authority competent under the Act for concluding the proceedings against the petitioner. 3. Now that according to the Government Pleader proceedings are initiated under the Kerala protection of River WPC.No. 30964/2010 :2 : Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act and the proceedings are thus pending before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, even if it is the case of the petitioner that what was available in the lorry in question was not a river sand, it is for the petitioner to appear before the Sub Divisional Magistrate and contest the case, Therefore, challenge against the proceedings cannot be entertained at this stage. 4. Be that as it may, if the petitioner is desirous of getting the interim custody of the vehicle pending finalization of the proceeding, it is for the petitioner to make an application before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, in which event it is up to the Sub Divisional Magistrate to consider the application in the light of the provisions in the Act and in the light of the judgment in Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala [2010(3)KHC 333]. Writ Petition is disposed of. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No. 30964/2010 :3 :