Kerala High Court
Rajeev Kumar K.V vs District Collector on 13 July, 2009
Author: V.Giri
Bench: V.Giri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 19536 of 2009(J)
1. RAJEEV KUMAR K.V., AGED 30 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TRISSUR
... Respondent
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
3. MALAYATTOOR NEELESWARAM GRAMA
For Petitioner :SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :13/07/2009
O R D E R
V.GIRI,J.
-------------------------
W.P ( C) No.19536 of 2009
--------------------------
Dated this the 13th July,2009
J U D G M E N T
The vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-11/Q335 belonging to petitioner was allegedly seized for infraction of the provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Banks (Protection and Regulation of removal of sand) Act, 2002. He has approached the District Collector, the 1st respondent for release of the vehicle and is aggrieved by the non-consideration of his request as such.
2. The nature of the power exercised by the District Collector and the para meters within which such power is to be exercised have been dealt with by a Bench of this Court in Sanjayan Vs.Tahasildar [2007 (4) KLT
597). Principles have been reiterated in Subramanian Vs. State of Kerala [2009 (1) KLT 77).
3. In Subramanian's case, this Court observed that the power exercised by the District Collector is under Section 23 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks W.P ( C) No.19536 of 2009 2 (Protection and Regulation of removal of sand) Act, 2002. It is also, therefore, quasi judicial in character. Reasons will have to be given by the District Collector while passing orders under Section 23 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks (Protection and Regulation of removal of sand) Act, 2002 r/w Rules 27 and 28 of Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Rules 2002. If there is a contention that the transportation of sand was supported by a pass issued by the competent local authority, that has to be referred. The materials which are placed before the District Collector by the subordinate officials shall also be looked into. This has been indicated in Subramanian's case. If motion is made by the owner of the vehicle for release of the vehicle on interim custody, it will be subject to the conditions mentioned in paragraph 58 of the said judgment. The District Collector may pass orders on such applications on interim custody. (The scope of the directions contained in Subramanian's case have later been dealt with in Sareesh Vs. District Collector [2009(2) KLT 906]. Appropriate W.P ( C) No.19536 of 2009 3 clarifications have been issued in the latter case). Further conditions can be imposed in the course of release of the vehicle as indicated by this Court in Shoukathali Vs. Tahasildar [2009 (1) KLT 640].
4. Keeping in mind the observations made in the judgments in Shoukathali's case and Subramanian's case and Sareesh's case which have been referred to, the 1st respondent shall pass final orders in the matter of confiscation/release of the vehicle in question after conducting an appropriate enquiry as early as possible, at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
5. In the meanwhile, if motion is made by the petitioner for interim custody of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-11/Q335 then orders shall be passed by the District Collector on the application for interim custody of the vehicle, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment in the light of the observations contained in Shoukathali Vs. Tahasildar [2009 (1) KLT 640, Subramanian Vs. State of Kerala [2009 (1) KLT 77) and W.P ( C) No.19536 of 2009 4 Sareesh Vs. District Collector [2009(2) KLT 906].
6. I make it clear that I have not considered the petitioner's contentions on merits. It is up to the District Collector to consider whether the vehicle is to be released on interim custody or not. It is also up to the District Collector to consider, in accordance with law, the question as to whether the vehicle belong to the petitioner has been used in a manner as to contravene the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder and as to whether the vehicle is liable for confiscation and pass final orders on that basis.
The writ petition is disposed of as above. The petitioner shall produce copies of the judgment in Subramanian, Shoukathali and Sareesh along with the certified copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent, for compliance.
(V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.19536 of 2009 5 W.P ( C) No.19536 of 2009 6 (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.19536 of 2009 7 W.P ( C) No.19536 of 2009 8 (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.19536 of 2009 9 W.P ( C) No.19536 of 2009 10