Disposed

Kumaresan v. District Collector,Thiruvananthapuram

Kerala HC22 Jun 2016WP(C)/2777/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging vehicle confiscation order. Court held District Collector lacks authority under the Act; directed collection to file with Sub Divisional Magistrate and petitioner to approach that office for release.

What did the court decide?

Direct District Collector to transmit files to Sub Divisional Magistrate; Petitioner at liberty to move Sub Divisional Magistrate for release of vehicle.

Kumaresan Vs District Collector,Thiruvan… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2016/1ST ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 2777 of 2010 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER : -

¶7

KUMARESAN, AGED 45, S/O.THANKAYYAN, ARAPPURA PUTHEN VEEDU, THALACHAMVILA PARASSALA, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY KAVIRAJ, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.MANIKANTAN, MADATHUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, VILAVANCODE, KUZHITHURA P.O.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.V.VIJULAL

¶9

RESPONDENTS : -

¶10

DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

TAHSILDAR,

¶12

TALUK OFFICE, NEYYATTINKARA.

¶13

SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POZHIYOOR POLICE STATION, POZHIYOOR.

¶14

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. JOBI JOSEPH

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No. 2777 of 2010 (V)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

¶19

EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF CASH BILL DATED 24.9.2009. EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF FORM No. 8 B DATED 24.9.09. EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF INTERSTATE PURCHASE BILL DATED 24.9.09. EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 8.12.2009.

¶20

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL.

// TRUE COPY //

P.A. TO JUDGE

DMR/-

P.V. ASHA, J.

W.P.(c) No. 2777 of 2010

¶26

Dated this the 22^nd day of June, 2016

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Exhibit P4 order passed by the District Collector confiscating his vehicle under Section 23 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').

¶29

According to the petitioner, he is a registered owner of lorry bearing Registration No.KL/01-G.5076 and the river sand purchased from one M/s Nisha Traders was being transported in the said vehicle, when it was seized. The petitioner has produced Exhibit P1 Bill dated 24.9.2009 saying that the river sand was purchased on second sales in accordance with the orders passed in W.P. No. 1251/2004 of the High Court of Tamil Nadu and Madurai. Exhibits P2 and P3 purchase bills are also produced in support of his claim that the sand was being transported from Tamil Nadu to one Kannan in Pozhiyoor. The case of the petitioner is that the vehicle was intercepted at Pazhavanjala before the check post at Pozhiyoor and it was reported to the District Collector by the third respondent, Sub

¶30

W.P.(c) No. 2777 of 2010

¶31

¶32

Inspector of Police, Pozhiyoor Police Station. The petitioner submits that the District Collector passed Exhibit P4 order confiscating his vehicle without considering any of his contentions and without looking into any of the documents (Exhibits P1 to P3), which he claims to have produced before the District Collector.

¶33

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶34

The respondents have not filed any counter affidavit,

¶35

even though this Court issued urgent notice to the respondents while admitting this writ petition on 29.01.2010. By interim order dated 15.03.2010 this Court has issued a direction to the District Collector to release the vehicle on the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.1,30,000/-, i.e. half the value assessed by the District Collector, and on furnishing a bond for the remaining amount with two solvent sureties, on condition that the petitioner shall not transfer or part-away with the vehicle during the pendency of the writ petition. Even though all the respondents are Government officials, it is seen that the petitioner did not file any process and no notice was sent to them. At the same time, the learned Government Pleader also

¶36

W.P.(c) No. 2777 of 2010

¶37

¶38

has not received any instructions.

¶39

The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a verified petition on 08.12.2011, stating that petitioner was unable to comply with the interim order and hence he could not get the lorry released.

¶40

From Exhibit P4 order it is seen that the vehicle was seized by the Sub Inspector of Police while it was engaged in illegal transportation of sand at 5 a.m. on 29.04.2009. On the basis of the Mahazar and report furnished by the Sub Inspector of Police, the District Collector considered the matter and found that the said vehicle was involved in similar offences four times earlier and each time the vehicle was released after realizing a sum of Rs.25,000/-, Rs. 20,000/-, Rs.10,000/- and Rs.30,000/- respectively as per receipts dated 10.11.2003, 21.05.2004, 22.11.2004 and 28.06.2005. The District Collector has also considered the contention of the petitioner that the sand which was being transported was from Tamil Nadu and an opportunity of hearing was afforded. But at the time of hearing, on 06.11.2009, the petitioner did not furnish any materials in support of his contention that the sand was being transported from Tamil Nadu. It was under the above

¶41

W.P.(c) No. 2777 of 2010

¶42

¶43

circumstances the vehicle was confiscated.

¶44

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

¶45

District Collector has no authority to confiscate the vehicle. However, the pleadings in Exhibit P4 are not disputed on the basis of any relevant materials. Under the Act it is seen that the Sub Divisional Magistrate is the appropriate authority to confiscate the vehicle.

¶46

In these circumstances, I direct that the further proceedings, if any, in the matter shall be completed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, for which the District Collector shall transmit the relevant files to that office. As I have left the further proceedings for consideration by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, petitioner will be at liberty to move the Sub Divisional Magistrate for release of the vehicle, which shall be considered in accordance with law.

¶47

With the above observation, the writ petition is closed.

¶48

P.V. ASHA, JUDGE

¶49

DMR/-

Kumaresan v. District Collector,Thiruvananthapuram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumaresan v. District Collector,Thiruvananthapuram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Sadasivan Nair Vs State of Kerala

Muhammad Siddeekh K. & Another Vs State of Kerala

Elizabeth Francies Vs Tahsildar, Kochi.

T.J.Yesudas Vs R.Sunilkumar

Anil Kumar T.V. Vs the Kerala Public Service Commission &

Shreekanth S.K and Others Vs State of Kerala and Others