IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 9TH APRIL 2010 / 19TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 13121 of 2010(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MAHEEN SHERIEF, S/O.ESMAYIL KUTTY, THEKKADATH VADAKKATHIL HOUSE, KADAPPA, MYNAGAPPALLY, KUNNATUR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANU SRI.S.K.PREMRAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETRIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, KUNNATHUR TALUK, KOLLAM. 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SASTHAMCOTTA POLICE STATION, SASTHAMCOTTA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY G.P. SHRI P.N. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 9/4/2010 , THE COURT ON 09/04/2010 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 13121 of 2010-M - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of April, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner is the registered owner of the goods carriage bearing registration No.KL-11/H-1643. The 4th respondent registered Crime No.130/2010 of Sasthamcotta Police Station under Section 21 of the Mines Act, 1952 and section 188 IPC on the allegation that the first accused therein with the permission of the petitioner, did mining of river sand from Kallada river unlawfully and in violation of the prohibition order issued by this Court and was transporting river sand in the petitioner's vehicle. Ext.P2 is the copy of the FIR in the said case. After registering the crime the 4th respondent, on 31.1.2010 seized the vehicle and the sand and seizure has been reported to the District Collector, Kollam through the second respondent. 2. The petitioner submits that he has not committed any crime as alleged and his vehicle is not liable to be confiscated. The petitioner approached the District Collector for release of the vehicle. But the second respondent has not released the vehicle and no notice was also issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submits that the seizure of the vehicle is highly wpc 13121/2010 2 unjustified and illegal. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is filed seeking for a direction to the respondents to release the petitioner's vehicle by way of interim custody. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Govt. Pleader. There will be a direction to the first respondent to take a decision on the request of the petitioner for interim custody of the vehicle, within a period of seven days from the date of production of a copy of this judgment, in the light of the well settled principles laid down by this Court in various decisions including Subramanyan v. State of Kerala (2009 (2) KLT 77) and on such terms and conditions. The matter will be considered in accordance with law. There will be a further direction to the first respondent to pass final orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment with notice to the petitioner and after considering the pleas raised by the petitioner, on merits. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/