IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 5TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 14TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 31570 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MANOJ KUMAR.K,KOTTATHARAYIL HOUSE, KANHIRAMUKKU.P.O,PONNANI. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.PURUSHOTHAMA KAIMAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,THRISSUR. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, GURUVAYOOR. 3. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 31570 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Heard Sri. P.N.Purushothama Kaimal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. P.Narayanan, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is the registered owner of a goods vehicle bearing registration No.KL 07 N 7250. The said vehicle was seized by the second respondent and produced before the District Collector, Thrissur, on the allegation that it was used to transport river sand without a valid pass. The petitioner thereupon moved the District Collector seeking interim custody of the vehicle. When orders were not passed thereon, he filed W.P.(C) No.27687 of 2009 in this Court. By judgment delivered on 1.10.2009, this Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the District Collector to consider the petitioner’s request for interim custody and pass orders thereon. This Court also directed the District Collector to pass final orders in the proceedings within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the District Collector passed Ext.P4 order dated 26.10.2009 granting interim custody of the vehicle on various terms and conditions. One of the conditions is that the petitioner should remit the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as security with two solvent sureties for the like sum. The said stipulation in Ext.P4 is under challenge in this writ petition. W.P.(C) No. 31570/09 2 3. The petitioner contends that the stipulation that he should pay the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in cash and also furnish two solvent sureties for the like sum is an onerous condition. He submits that the vehicle is 1996 model vehicle, the value of which is below Rs.1,00,000/- and therefore the District Collector erred in directing him to remit the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as security with two solvent sureties for the like sum. 4. The vehicle in question was seized on 26.9.2009. Only one month has passed thereafter. In my opinion, if the petitioner is not in a position to comply with the conditions stipulated in Ext.P4, he need not comply with the same and take interim custody of the vehicle. He can wait till the District Collector passes final orders in the proceedings initiated against him under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. I therefore decline jurisdiction and dismiss this writ petition with a direction to the District Collector to pass final orders in the proceedings initiated by him under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001, within the time limit stipulated in the judgment delivered in W.P.(C) No.27687 of 2009. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE vps W.P.(C) No. 31570/09 2