1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking direction to respondents 1 and 2 for refund of money deposited by the petitioner before the river management fund, and to quash Ext.P6 proceedings issued by the 1st respondent dated 31.05.2018, declining to refund the money as requested by the petitioner. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

2. A Mini Lorry belonging to the petitioner bearing No.KL-04-T-6617 was seized by the 3rd respondent, alleging illegal transportation of river sand. The 3rd respondent registered crime No.201/2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 17(4) and 28, r/w Sec.20 of Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 (for short, 'the Sand Act'). Petitioner approached the 2nd respondent and by way of an interim order, the vehicle was released on condition of depositing an amount of Rs.44,640/-, being 1/3rd of the value of the vehicle to the river management fund. Accordingly, evident from Ext.P2, petitioner has deposited the same. The 3rd respondent submitted final report before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Cherthala, which was taken on file as C.C.No.2810/2012, and after trial, learned Magistrate acquitted the petitioner finding that the prosecution has failed in proving transportation of any sand in the lorry, evident from Ext.P3 judgment.

3. Now the case projected by the petitioner is that, no manner of adjudication proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of the Sand Act. Thereupon, 2nd petitioner has submitted Ext.P4 application before the respondent for release of the money deposited in accordance with the interim order passed by the 2nd respondent. When no action was initiated, petitioner has filed W.P.(C) No.11236 of 2016 before this Court, wherein, the 2nd respondent was directed to consider and dispose of the request of the petitioner within a period of two months.

4. The 1st respondent has passed Ext.P6 order after a period of two years, stating that the money deposited is not refundable on the ground the prosecution and confiscation proceedings are different and hence not refundable. The case projected by the petitioner is that, 1st respondent has not issued any notice under Sec.23A (3) of the Act or taken any confiscation proceedings under Sec.23A (4) of the Act, till now against the petitioner, and therefore, the amount deposited by the petitioner cannot be adjusted against any confiscation proceedings.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, and perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the respective parties.

6. A counter affidavit is filed by the 1st respondent, refuting the allegations and claims and demands raised by the petitioner, in which the seizure of the vehicle, acquittal of the accused by the Magistrate Court etc. are all admitted. It is also admitted that the vehicle was released in interim custody on the petitioner depositing the amount specified above. Therein also, it is reported that the confiscation of vehicle is independent from prosecution, as per the Sand Act, and therefore, there is no legal infirmity in Ext.P6 order passed by the 1st respondent, who is the authority under the Act to initiate confiscation proceedings.

7. I have considered the rival submissions made across the Bar and perused the pleadings and the documents on record.

8. The issue revolves around Ext.P6 order passed by the 1st respondent, wherein, the application submitted by the petitioner was dismissed, holding that petitioner is not entitled to get the amount deposited, since the criminal proceedings and confiscation are entirely two different procedures. Section 23A of the Act deals with the adjudication proceedings that can be undertaken by the authority under the Sand Act, which reads thus:

“23A. Confiscation of sand, vehicles, etc.--

(1) Where any property is seized under Section 23, the officer seiz