J. Chelameswar, C.J.

In these two appeals, there is a common question. Therefore we take the facts of W.A.No. 1329 of 2010 to represent the facts of two Writ Appeals.

2. The appellant, claims to be the owner of the vehicle bearing No. KL30 A 1244. The said vehicle was seized by the respondents on the ground that the vehicle was found violating the provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. By order dated 7.6.2010 of the first respondent, the vehicle was confiscated. Such confiscation is provided under Section 23 of the Act, which reads as follows:

23. Confiscation of Vehicles : Whoever transports sand without complying with the provisions of this Act shall be liable to be punished and the vehicle used for the transaction is liable for seizure by the Police or Revenue Officials.

However, Rule 27 (3) of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Rules, 2002 framed under the above mentioned Act provide that the vehicle confiscated may be returned either to the owner or to the possessor on remitting an amount equal to the price of the vehicle determined by the District Collector along with fine. Therefore, by order dated 7.6.2010, the first respondent directed that the vehicle in question be returned to the owner on condition that the owner deposits an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs. Aggrieved by the said decision, the appellant herein approached this Court, which was dismissed by the judgment dated 8.7.2010, which is under challenge in this appeal.

3. The only submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants that the order of confiscation came to be passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellants.

4. Admittedly, the drivers of the respective vehicles were served with notice of the confiscation proceedings. The appellants do not dispute the fact that the vehicles were entrusted to the drivers. In such a case drivers become the agents of the appellants. Rule 27 (2) stipulates that a copy of the seizure mahazar shall be given to the person possessing the vehicle at the time of the seizure. Obviously, the person who is in possession of the vehicle is treated to be the agent of the owner of the vehicle under the law and the legislature thought that the notice on the agent is sufficient to comply with the requirement of the rule of audi alteram partem. We have no reason to take a different view.In the said circumstances, we are of the opinion that, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgments. Both the Writ Appeals, therefore, dismissed in the admission stage.