P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

1. Petitioner is the owner of the vehicle bearing No. KL.36.2527, which was taken into custody by the first respondent/Sub Inspector as per Ext.P1 seizure Mahazar dated 29.9.2014 alleging illegal transportation of river sand. The case of the petitioner is that no such offence has been committed by the petitioner under any circumstance and that the material carried in the vehicle was only ordinary sand.

2. The petitioner approached the third respondent/RDO herein seeking for interim custody of the vehicle in the light of the law declared by this Court. But it was hesitated to be acted upon, stating that after amendment of the statute, particularly with reference to Section 23A, the third respondent was not having any authority/jurisdiction to grant interim custody, the same being vested with the JFCM having jurisdiction over the area.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that the idea and understanding of the third respondent/RDO is quite wrong and unsustainable, as the amendment has only brought about an enabling provision, whereby the JFCM is also vested with the authority to grant interim custody, simultaneously making it obligatory for the co