IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER TUESDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2008 / 22ND ASWINA 1930 WA.No. 2041 of 2008 ------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN WPC.28117/2008 Dated 23/09/2008 & 30.9.2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------ SULAIMAN, MANJORAMMAL, PULIKKOTH DESOM, MADAVOOR AMSOM, PADANILAM POST, KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHEVAYOOR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KUNNAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, KUNNAMANGALAM. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL), KOZHIKODE. 5. ABDUL RAZAK, THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ----------------------------------------------------- W.A.No.2041 of 2008 ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 14th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. This writ appeal is directed against the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.28117/2008 dated 23.9.2008. 2. By order dated 23.9.2008, the learned Single Judge has directed the petitioner to furnish Bank Guarantee from a nationalised Bank for an amount of Rs.2,25,000/- in favour of the District Collector, Kozhikode, for release of lorry bearing Registration No.KL 11/D 9763. 3. The petitioner thereafter had filed I.A.No.12371/2008, inter alia requesting the learned Single Judge to modify the earlier order passed on 23rd September, 2008. The learned Single Judge, by his order dated 30.9.2008 has declined to grant the request made in I.A.No.12371/2008. 4. The facts in brief are: The lorry owned by the petitioner, bearing Registration No.KL 11/D 9763, was seized by the 5th respondent, stating that the vehicle was transporting river sand without proper authorisation. According to the petitioner, he was not transporting the river sand, but was transporting “M” sand, and, therefore W.A.No.2041/2008 -2- the 5th respondent could not have seized the vehicle. Aggrieved by the action of the 5th respondent, the petitioner was before this Court in W.P.(C) No.26150/2008. The said writ petition came to be disposed of by this Court by directing the District Collector, Kozhikode to dispose of the matter within 7 days from the date of receipt of this Court's order. 5. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, the District Collector, Kozhikode had called for a report from the Geologist, Mining and Geology Department, Kozhikode, who by his report dated 3.9.2008 had opined that the petitioner in his lorry was carrying “M” sand and not river sand. The District Collector was not satisfied with the report so filed by the Geologist, and, therefore had directed the Head of the Surface Water Division, CWRDM, Kunnamangalam and Assistant Collector, Kozhikode and Executive Magistrate to submit their reports. Pursuant to the direction so issued, both the authorities have submitted their reports dated 4.9.2008 and 15.9.2008 respectively. 6. The District Collector, after considering the contents of all the reports has come to the conclusion that the petitioner was carrying river sand, and, therefore has imposed a fine of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.2 lakhs being the cost of the vehicle. He has also observed in his order that on remitting the aforesaid amount, the vehicle will be released W.A.No.2041/2008 -3- after unloading the sand. 7. Aggrieved by the order so passed by the District Collector, the petitioner is before this Court, inter alia requesting this Court to quash the order passed by the District Collector, Kozhikode dated 15.9.2008. By way of interim prayer, the petitioner has requested this Court to direct the District Collector, Kozhikode to release the vehicle bearing Registration No.KL-11/D 9763 along with sand without any delay pending disposal of the writ petition. 8. The learned Single Judge being of the opinion that there are three reports, one in favour of the petitioner and the other two against him by different authorities, and, further being of the opinion that in the event the petitioner does not succeed in the writ petition, the respondents will not be in a position to realise the amounts imposed by the District Collector while passing the impugned order, has directed the petitioner to furnish Bank Guarantee for release of the vehicle. 9. This Court normally will not interfere with the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge unless the impugned order is wholly arbitrary, or capricious, or unreasonable. 10. In order to do justice, not only to the petitioner but also to the respondents/State, the learned Single Judge has thought it fit W.A.No.2041/2008 -4- that the petitioner should be put on certain terms before ordering release of the vehicle. The conditions imposed by the learned Single Judge, in our opinion, can never be characterised as arbitrary or onerous. In that view of the matter, while declining to entertain the writ appeal, we confirm the interim orders passed by the learned Single Judge. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE MS/dk.