Partly allowed

A.K.Pradeep v. the District Collector,Thrissur & Others

Kerala HC10 Nov 2016WP(C)/8190/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition challenged confiscation of vehicle involved in illegal river sand transport. Court found petitioner failed to produce valid pass or other material. Confiscation order upheld but release granted upon deposit of amount within one month pending adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to deposit amount within one month; vehicle to be released subject to adjudication proceedings.

A.K.Pradeep Vs the District Collector,Thrissur & Others — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/19TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 8190 of 2010 (W)

¶6

PETITIONER):

¶7

A.K.PRADEEP, AGED 29 YEARS, APPATHADATH HOUSE, NETTISSERY, NALLANKARA, THRISSUR.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SAJEEV

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR.

¶11

2. THE TAHSILDAR, THALAPPILLY TALUK.

¶12

3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHERUTHURUTHY POLICE STATION.

¶13

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.PRINCY XAVIER

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

mbr/

¶16

WP(C).No. 8190 of 2010 (W)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶19

EXT. P1 : TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF THE VEHICLE NO.KL-7-S-6669.

¶20

EXT. P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B7-10468/09 DATED 23.11.2009.

¶21

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

P.V.ASHA J.

-------------------------------------------W.P.(C).No.8190 of 2010

¶27

---------------------------------------------

¶28

Dated this the 10^th day of November, 2016

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

The petitioner filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P2 by which the District Collector confiscated the vehicle of the petitioner, which was seized while it was involved in illegal transportation of river sand. The petitioner was directed to remit a sum of Rs.2,50,000 towards the River Management Fund, failing which, it was informed that vehicle would be disposed of and the sale proceeds would be remitted to the River Management Fund.

¶31

The petitioner filed this writ petition stating that the vehicle was used for transportation of river sand with valid pass and there was no reason for initiating confiscation proceedings. It was further stated that the Tahsildar who seized the vehicle did not follow the procedure prescribed under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001, while seizing the vehicle. It was also stated that the amount fixed by the first respondent was excessive and in the absence any criminal prosecution, proceedings for confiscation was not permitted.

¶32

Even though there was an interim order passed by

¶33

W.P.(C).No.8190 of 2010

¶34

¶35

this Court on 12.03.2010, directing the respondents to release the vehicle on depositing half of the amount covered by Ext.P2 and on furnishing a bond for the remaining amount, the learned Government Pleader on instruction submitted that the petitioner has not got the vehicle released and on account of the pendency of this writ petition, proceedings for auction of the vehicle also could not be conducted.

¶36

From Ext.P2, it is seen that the vehicle was seized seeing that it was involved in transportation of river sand without any valid pass. Ext.P2 order is passed by the District collector after hearing the petitioner who could not produce any documents in support of his claim that he was transporting river sand with valid pass. Since the petitioner did not produce any pass the enquiry was concluded under Section 23 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 r/w Rule 27(3) of the Rules directing the petitioner to remit a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- for remitting the same to the River Management Fund.

¶37

Petitioner has not produced any material before this

¶38

Court also in order to substantiate his claim that vehicle was having valid pass for transporting the sand.

¶39

Under the above circumstances, I do not find any reason

¶40

W.P.(C).No.8190 of 2010

¶41

¶42

to interfere with Ext.P2 order. However, in case the petitioner approaches the first respondent with the amount as directed in Ext.P2, within a period of 'one month', the respondent shall release the vehicle subject to the proceedings of adjudication, in accordance with law.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.

¶45

A.K.Pradeep v. the District Collector,Thrissur & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.K.Pradeep v. the District Collector,Thrissur & Others

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

Jobish Mathew Vs B. Sreenivasan

Chellappan Vs the Branch Manager

Padmini Amma Vs State of Kerala

Tas-Hil Cardemom (P) Limited Vs State of Kerala

K.B.Krishnakumar Vs Village Office Kanayannoor.

T.N.Babu Vs Kumaran & Others