J. Chelameswar, C. J.

1. This batch of writ appeals and the writ petitions raise a common question. Cargo vehicles owned by the various persons (writ appellants or writ petitioners, as the case may be) were seized by the authorities functioning under the provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 on the allegation that these vehicles were found transporting "river sand" in contravention of some provision or other of the above mentioned enactment. Section 23 of the said Act authorises the confiscation of a vehicle which is found transporting sand without complying with the provisions of the Act. Such a confiscation was required to be made by the District Collector under Rules 27 and 28 of the Rules known as Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Rules, 2002.

2. The case of all the petitioners and the appellants before us is that the confiscation proceedings before the Collector take an unduly long time and during the pendency of such proceedings the vehicles seized are left unprotected and exposed to the vagaries of the weather. Therefore, in the event even if the confiscation proceedings result in an order favourable to the owner of the vehicle, though the owner of the vehicle in law is entitled to take back the custody of the vehicle, the vehicle would get damaged and the value of the vehicle would be depreciated. Therefore, these writ petitions/appeals praying that the owners of the vehicles be given the interim custody during the pendency of the proceedings under the above mentioned Act.

3. It may be mentioned here neither the Act nor the Rules provide for the interim custody of the vehicles. In the absence of any specific provision normally a vehicle seized by the State on the allegation of the contravention of some provision of the law is required to be in the custody of the State until the adjudication into the accuracy of such allegation is completed. Though under some enactments specific provisions exist envisaging interim custody of the vehicle during the pendency of the confiscation proceedings to be given to the owner of the vehicle on some terms and conditions. The Kerala Abkari Act is one such provision.

4. This Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India from time to time took a view that interim custody of the vehicles seized under the provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 may be given to the owners during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 23 of the Act. However, regarding the terms and conditions subject to which such interim custody is to be given there is a divergence of opinion. A Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.2579 of 2009 by judgment dated 4th December 2009 opined as follows:-

"7. Having regard to the fact that large number of cases involving illegal transportation of sand in violation of the provisions contained in Kerala Protection of River Banks & Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001, we are of the view that following guidelines/directions have to be issued with regard to the release of vehicles that may be involved in such cases.

i. The vehicle shall be released to the registered owner on his depositing half of the total value of the vehicle as may be assessed by the Assistant Executive Engineer (Mechanical), PWD as provided under Rule 4 of the Kerala Abkari (Disposal of Confiscated Articles) Rules, 1996 or the Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector.

ii. The registered owner shall execute a bond furnishing security for the balance amount to the satisfaction of the District Collector concerned. He shall further undertake to produce the vehicle as and when directed and also not to transfer/alienate the vehicle pending the proceedings. It shall also be undertaken by the registered owner that he will not cause any damage to the vehicle so as to reduce its value and utility.

iii. If the vehicle ge