T K SHOUKATHALI Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED Govt. Pleader takes notice for respondent.

(2.) A tipper lorry belonging to the petitioner was seized in connection with alleged violation of provisions of the Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 (Kerala). That vehicle was confiscated by the authorised officer against which a revision was filed before the District Collector who upheld the order. That order was challenged before the learned District Judge, Manjeri in C.M.A.No.8 of 2011. Along with the C.M.Appeal petitioner filed I.A.No.123 of 2011 for interim custody of the vehicle. Learned District Judge passed Ext.P1, order dated April 12, 2011 granting interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner subject to conditions which included that petitioner shall deposit 30% of value of the tipper (as got assessed by the District Collector, Malappuram) in cash and produce bank guarantee for the remainder (70%). Petitioner is aggrieved by the condition requiring him to produce bank guarantee for 70% of value of the vehicle. Learned counsel has invited my attention to the observations of the Full Bench of this Court in Shan v. State of Kerala (2010 (3) KLT 413) and requested that instead of bank guarantee, petitioner may be permitted to produce security of immovable property for 70% of value of the vehicle. I have heard learned Government Pleader also.