NAUFAL S/O MUHAMMED Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR; TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri.U.K.Devidas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.P.N.Santhosh, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner is the registered owner of a goods vehicle bearing registration No.KL-10/A-7679. The said vehicle was intercepted and seized by the second respondent on 23.10.2009 at 4.45 pm, on the allegation that there was a short delay of 25 minutes in reaching the destination. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the seizure of his vehicle and seeks a direction to the respondents to release the vehicle to him.

(3.) A learned Single Judge of this Court has in Subramanian V. State of Kerala,2009 1 KLT 77 while upholding the constitutional validity of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 held that the District Collector has the power to direct release of any vehicle which is seized and produced before him, by way of interim custody. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner should move the District Collector in writing, setting out the contentions raised in this writ petition and pointing out the fact that the sand transported was covered by a valid pass and that it was seized only because of the fact that there was a short delay of 25 minutes in reaching the destination mentioned in the pass. I accordingly dispose of this writ petition with the following directions: