Balakrishnan Nair, J.

The common point that arises for decision in this batch of writ petitions is the constitutional validity of Section 17 of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 and so, they are heard and disposed of by this common judgment.

W.P.(C) No.9925 of 2009:

2. This writ petition is treated as the main case, for the purpose of referring to the exhibits. The point that arises for decision in this case is the validity of the steps taken by the District Magistrate, Malappuram for confiscation of the goods carriage, bearing Registration No. KL 11-B/6651, owned by the petitioner. The constitutional validity of Section 17 of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act") is also raised for decision.

3. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the petitioner, are the following:

He is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No.KL 11-B/6651. The said vehicle was seized by the second respondent, Sub Inspector of Police. At the relevant time, it was not loaded with sand. The report of seizure of the vehicle was made before the first respondent, District Collector(District Magistrate), Malappuram by the second respondent. A copy of the said report dated 11.3.2009 is produced as Ext.P1. As per the report, the second respondent has been empowered by the District Collector, invoking his power under Section 17(1) of the Act, to seize the vehicles suspected to be used in the commission of anti-social activities, as defined under Section 2(a) of the Act. A true copy of the said order of the District Collector is Ext.P2. Apprehending that the vehicle may be confiscated by the District Collector/District Magistrate under Section 17(3) of the Act, the writ petition was filed, seeking appropriate reliefs. The petitioner prayed for quashing Exts.P1 and P2. He also prayed for a declaration that Section 17 of the Act is ultra vires of the provisions of the Constitution of India. Other incidental reliefs were also sought.

4. On behalf of the 4th respondent, State of Kerala, a counter affidavit has been filed, supporting the constitutional validity of the provisions of the Act and supporting the impugned orders, in W.P.(C) No.10846/99, which is one of the connected writ petitions posted along with this case. Adopting the said counter affidavit, a memo has been filed in this writ petition.

5. We heard Sri.Babu S.Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel appearing in the connected writ petitions. On behalf of the respondents, we heard learned Additional Director General of Prosecutions, Sri.K.K.Ravindranath. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no substantive provision in the Act, prohibiting the use of vehicles for anti-social activities and also providing for confiscation of such vehicles. The Act also does not lay down any procedure to be followed for confiscation of the vehicles involved in anti-social activities. There is no provision providing any appellate remedy under the Act to the aggrieved person. The learned counsel also submitted that mere subjective satisfaction of the Sub Inspector of Police that the vehicle has been or is being or is about to be used for committing any anti-social activity, is sufficient to seize the vehicle. Upon receipt of report of such seizure made, based on the subjective satisfaction of the police officer, the District Magistrate decides to confiscate the vehicle. The said provision is highly arbitrary, discriminatory and unjust. The same offends the petitioner's fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel appearing in the connected cases pointed out that the seized vehicles were the only source of livelihood for the petitioners. By the arbitrary action, their livelihood has been affected. The same would amount to infringing their fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. Now, it is well