IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2010 / 29TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 32317 of 2010(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- DAVID RAJ C., S/O.CHINNIAN, 36, EAST MADA STREET, VILLIVAAKKAM, CHENNAI, TAMILNADU, NOW RESIDING AT DAVID BHAVAN, S.T.MANGAD, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT, TAMILNADU. BY ADV. SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE SRI.A.N.SHAJI (MURAMEL) RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 2. THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER (RDO), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POOVAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 031. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 32317 OF 2010 (L) ===================== Dated this the 21st day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T In this Writ Petition, the petitioner complains that his Taurus lorry bearing Regn.No.TN-21-Q-0387, 16 Ton HGV-Ashok Leyland has been detained on the allegation that the vehicle was used for transportation of river sand in violation of the provisions contained in the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. According to the petitioner, the sand was purchased from a registered dealer in Tamilnadu and was transported on the strength of all required documents. It is contended that, therefore the provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 are inapplicable and hence the proceedings are liable to be set aside. 2. However, as can be seen from the records, proceedings initiated against the petitioner is on the allegation that the transportation was in violation of the provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 and if the petitioner has a case that the sand was brought from outside the State, and that therefore the Act is WPC No. 32317/10 :2 : inapplicable, it is for the petitioner to appear before the Sub Divisional Magistrate and substantiate his contentions by adducing necessary evidence. Having regard to the pendency of the proceedings, it will be premature for this Court to examine the contentions raised. 3. It is seen that the petitioner has filed Ext.P12 representation seeking interim custody of the vehicle. However, that application is made before the District Collector and therefore cannot be ordered to be considered. 4. Be that as it may, if the petitioner is desirous of getting the vehicle released, it will be open to the petitioner to move an appropriate application before the Sub Divisional Magistrate seeking interim custody of the vehicle. If such an application is filed, it is directed that the same will be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Act and applying the principles laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala [2010(3)KHC 333]. 5. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the Writ Petition before the concerned WPC No. 32317/10 :3 : authority for appropriate action. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp