IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 29TH AUGUST 2011 / 7TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 23520 of 2011(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- HASHIM V.P, VALLUPARAMBATH HOUSE, MADAPPALLY COLLEGE P.O, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD 671121. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KASARAGOD 671121. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANJESWARAM 671323. SR.GOVT.PLEADER SMT.M.J.RAJASHREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.23520/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER'S VEHICLE. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE AUTHORISATION CERTIFICATE OF THE NATIONAL PERMIT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE BILL DATED 22.8.11 ISSUED BY THE DEALER. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 22.8.11 EVIDENCING THE PAYMENT OF TAX. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION NO.32130530324C DATED 26.5.2010. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 11.11.2010 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 23520 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 29th day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the registered owner of a lorry bearing Regn.No.KL-18 G 7747. According to the petitioner, he has procured sand from Karnataka State and has transported the same to Kerala. It is stated that though the provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 is inapplicable to such sand, the 3rd respondent seized the vehicle and proceedings have been launched under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. It is stated that proceedings are now pending before the 2nd respondent. In view of the aforesaid case of the petitioner regarding the inapplicability of the Act, this writ petition has been filed challenging the whole proceedings and also seeking a direction for release of the vehicle. 2. In my view, in order to appreciate the contentions of the petitioner, necessarily factual issues will have to be adjudicated. Such an adjudication is possible only by the 2nd respondent, the officer designated under the aforesaid Act. Now WPC No. 23520/11 :2 : that even according to the petitioner such proceedings are pending before the 2nd respondent, I direct the 2nd respondent to expeditiously conclude the proceedings with notice to the parties. If in the meanwhile, the petitioner is desirous of obtaining interim custody of the vehicle, it is clarified that, it will be open to the petitioner to make an application, in which event, the 2nd respondent shall deal with the same applying the principles laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala [2010(3)KHC 333]. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp