Allowed

Abdul Salam v. the District Collector

Kerala HC2 Nov 2009WP(C)/14619/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged an order confiscating his vehicle for unauthorized sand transport under the Anti-Social Activities Act. Citing a Division Bench ruling that prohibits Section 17 application for sand transport, the Single Judge quashed the confiscation order. The Collector is directed to release the vehicle upon a nominal deposit and to pursue proceedings under the proper River Banks Act w

What did the court decide?

The order under the Anti-Social Activities Act is quashed. The vehicle is released upon deposit of Rs. 25,000 and execution of a bond. The Collector must decide within one month to initiate proceeding

Abdul Salam Vs the District Collector — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2009 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 14619 of 2009(V)

PETITIONER(S):

ABDUL SALAM, S/O. MOHAMMED, CHENKADAN HOUSE, POST THALAKADATHU, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DIST.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

¶13

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM.

¶14

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TIRUR.

¶15

BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.RAMESH

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

W.P.(C) No. 14619/09

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶20

EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 2.3.2009 IN CMP 513/2009 OF JFCM COURT, TIRUR.

¶21

EXT.P2: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT. 7.5.2009

¶22

PA TO JUDGE

¶23

TRUE COPY

¶24

P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.

¶25

W.P.(C) No. 14619 OF 2009

¶26

Dated this the 2^nd day of November, 2009

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

Heard Sri.C.M.Mohammed Iquabal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.K.Ramesh, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶29

The petitioner is the owner of a goods vehicle bearing registration No.KL-55-B 8862. The said vehicle was seized by the Sub Inspector of Police, Tirur and produced before the District Collector, Malappuram, on the allegation that it was used to transport river sand without a valid pass. Thereupon, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and his vehicle under Section 17 of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 and Ext.P2 order was passed ordering confiscation of the petitioner's vehicle under Section 17(2) of the said Act. The District Collector also directed that it will be open to the petitioner to pay the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- in lieu of confiscation and to obtain release of the vehicle. Ext.P2 is under challenge in this writ petition.

¶30

A Division Bench of this Court has in Abdul Majeed v.

¶31

District Collector (2009 (3) KLT 459) held that Section 17 of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 cannot be invoked against owners of vehicles used to transport river sand without a valid

¶32

W.P.(C) No. 14619/09

¶33

¶34

pass. The Division Bench held that action, if any, can be taken only under the provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 and the rules framed thereunder. In the light of the authoritative pronouncement of the Division Bench of this Court, I am of the opinion that Ext.P2 order cannot be sustained.

¶35

In Abdul Majeed v. District Collector (supra), the Division Bench of this Court also directed that if the District Collector intends to proceed under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001, such proceedings shall be initiated within one month from the date on which a copy of the judgment is produced before him or received by him. In that case, the vehicle involved had already been released, by way of interim custody pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court on payment of the sum of Rs.25,000/- and the execution of a bond wherein the owner of the vehicle had undertaken not to alienate, encumber or otherwise dispose of the vehicle. The Division Bench also directed that if the District Collector does not initiate proceedings, if any, under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 and the rules framed thereunder within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the judgment, the release of the vehicle pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court shall be treated as unconditional, that the amounts deposited by the vehicle

¶36

W.P.(C) No. 14619/09

¶37

¶38

owner shall be released and that the conditions imposed shall stand vacated. In cases where, vehicles had not been released by way of interim custody, this Court held that the vehicles shall be released to the owners on conditions imposed by this Court, namely deposit of the sum of Rs.25,000/- and the execution of a bond undertaking that the vehicles will not be alienated, encumbered or otherwise disposed of. In the light of the directions issued by the Division Bench in Abdul Majeed v. District Collector (supra), I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions:

¶39

(i) Ext.P2 order issued under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 shall stand quashed;

¶40

(ii) The District Collector, Malappuram shall release the petitioner's vehicle to him on the petitioner depositing the sum of Rs.25,000/- and executing a bond undertaking that he will not encumber the vehicle or alienate or otherwise dispose of the same. The vehicle shall be released to the petitioner on the day he deposits the sum of Rs.25,000/- and executes the bond;

¶41

(iii) The District Collector, Malappuram shall within one month from the date on which a certified copy of this judgment is produced before him or received by him also decide whether proceedings should be initiated against the petitioner's vehicle under the Kerala Protection of River Banks

¶42

W.P.(C) No. 14619/09

¶43

¶44

and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 and the Rules framed thereunder. If the District Collector initiates such proceedings, the same shall be finalised within two months thereafter, after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The contentions of the petitioner on the merits are kept open. If within the said period of one month, the District Collector does not initiate such proceedings, the release of the vehicle to the petitioner shall be treated as unconditional, the money deposited by him shall be refunded and the bond executed by him shall stand revoked.

¶45

P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE

¶46

vps

Abdul Salam v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Salam v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kottaram Trading Company Vs Corporation of Kochi

Saju P.Thomas Vs Mahatma Gandhi University, Rep.by Regist

Sudhamini Vs the Village Officer

M/S Cee Jee Lubricants Vs the Kerala State Road Transport Corporat

Sulochana Vs State of Kerala and Others

Sanoop Sunny Vs M..G.University