IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2011 / 31ST BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 24498 of 2011(J) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- SUDHEERAN, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. VELAYUDHAN, CHAKKAMKERAN HOUSE, ENGANDIYOOR. P.O., THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.I.SAGEER RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR-680 005. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANTHIKKAD POLICE STATION, ANTHIKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 316. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER MR.P.N. SANTHOSH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/09/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 24498 of 2011(J) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 20/08/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).24498/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner claims to be the owner of a vehicle bearing registration No.KL-07-AQ-1521. It is alleged that the respondents have seized the vehicle alleging illegal transportation of river sand violating the provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 (Act for short). There upon, the petitioner made Ext.P1 application before the first respondent seeking interim custody of the vehicle and that the said application is not considered. It is in the said circumstances, the writ petition is filed. 2. Petitioner has not produced any material to indicate that the seizure has been effected on the allegation that the vehicle was used in violation of the provisions of the Act. Therefore, this Court is not in a position to conclude on the nature of the proceedings against the petitioner or his vehicle. 3. Be that as it may, having regard to the allegation made by the petitioner that the seizure was under the provisions of the Act W.P.(C).24498/11 2 and that he has made Ext.P1 application to the first respondent for interim custody of the vehicle, I direct that if the statement made is factually correct, the first respondent shall consider Ext.P1 application in the light of the principles laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala [2010(3) KHC 333], provided the application has been received and is pending. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs