IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 18TH OCTOBER 2010 / 26TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 23312 of 2005(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SIBI. P.V., S/O. VISWANATHAN, AGED 31 YEARS, PUTHENPARAMBIL, KARIPPADAM P.O., THALAYOLAPPARAMBU DESOM, VELLOOR VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT (OWNER OF LORRY BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL-7-H.6258). BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VAIKOM POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.ANTONY MUKKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). No. 23312/2005 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN W.P.(C). No. 38488/2003. P2. COPY OF THE ORDER IN W.P.(C). No. 38488/2003 IN I.A.NO.15752/2003. P3. COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF PAYMENT. P4. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.10.3.2004. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.23312 of 2005 ================== Dated this the 18th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner's vehicle bearing registration No.KL-7H-6258 was seized by the 2nd respondent on 4.12.2003 on allegations of using the vehicle for illegal transportation of river sand in violation of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act. As per the orders of this Court, interim custody of the vehicle was given to the petitioner on the petitioner depositing an amount of Rs.10,000/-. This Court, by Ext.P1 judgment, directed the 1st respondent-District Collector to adjudicate the matter and pass final orders. Subsequently, by Ext.P4 order, the 1st respondent passed final orders holding that the vehicle was seized without complying with the procedures prescribed under the Act and Rules and, therefore, the vehicle is released to the petitioner. The petitioner's grievance now is that despite passing final orders in favour of the petitioner, the amount deposited by him as a condition for interim custody of the vehicle has not been released to the petitioner. 2. The counsel for the petitioner is absent. I have heard the learned Government Pleader. 3. The learned Government Pleader could not satisfy me as to how the respondents can retain the amount deposited as a condition w.p.c.23312/05 2 for interim custody of the vehicle, on the District Collector passing final orders finding that the seizure itself was illegal. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to refund of the said amount of Rs.10,000/-. The said amount shall be released to the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, if not already released. The writ petition is allowed as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge