JUDGMENT : 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. 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 seizing such property shall seal all such properties for indicating that the same is seized and shall, whether prosecution proceedings have been initiated or not, within forty eight hours of such seizure make a report of such seizure before the Judicial Magistrate and before the Sub Divisional Magistrate having jurisdiction over the area from where the said properties are seized and the fact of such seizure shall be informed to the Station House Officer of the Police Station, having jurisdiction over the area. Where information regarding such seizure of property is received, the Police Officer concerned shall take steps under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974). (2) Where a report under sub-section (1) is received before the Judicial Magistrate having jurisdiction, steps thereon, not contrary to the other provisions of this Act, shall be taken as per the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974) and, if no claim is raised regarding the articles seized or where the Court is satisfied that the application to release them is not satisfactory, they shall be subjected to confiscation under sub-section (4): Provided that the release of the properties seized to any person, for its safe custody, to any person or its disposal, shall be on sufficient security and such release or disposal shall only be till the completion of the confiscation proceedings under this Act: Provided further that the sand seized shall not, for any reason, be released to any person and the same shall be subjected to confiscation under subsection (4). (3) Where a report under sub-section (1) is received before a Sub-Divisional Magistrate, a notice requiring to furnish in writing within the stipulated time as stated in the notice, the reasons, if any, for not confiscating the property seized under Section 23, shall be issued to the owner of, or the person having control of, the vehicle, tool, implements, loading equipment, or other article. (4) Where the owner of the properties seized or the person having control of the same does not furnish explanation or the explanation given is not satisfactory, and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is satisfied that the properties seized under Section 23 are to be confiscated, he shall, by an order, confiscate the same and the fact shall be informed in writing to its owner or the person having its control: Provided that the owner of the properties seized or the person having its control shall be given the liberty to reclaim it, except sand, by remitting an amount equal to the value of the confiscated articles, as fixed by the Collector, in lieu of the properties confiscated: Provided further that the sand confiscated shall not for any reason, be released by releasing the value. (5) The amount received under sub-section (4) shall, subject to the provisions of Section 23D, be remitted to the River Management Fund. (5) The amount received under sub-section (4) shall, subject to the provisions of Section 23D, be remitted to the River Management Fund. (6) The sand confiscated under sub-section (4) shall be sold to Nirmithi Kendra or to 'Kalavara' at such rate, as may be fixed by the Public Works Department from time to time and such amount shall be remitted to the River Management Fund. (7) The confiscation under this section shall be in addition to the penalty provided for the offence under this Act.” 9. On a reading of Sections 23, 23A, 23B and 23C dealing with revision and appeal, and Sections 24 and 25 dealing with prosecution, harmoniously, it is evident that the adjudication proceedings and confiscation proceedings are entirely two different facets under the Act. However, fact remains, no confiscation/adjudication proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, and there is no case for the respondents that any such proceedings were initiated and adjudicated the same in accordance with law. In my considered view, 1st respondent was carried away by the provisions of the Act and in Ext.P6, nowhere it is stated that the confiscation proceedings in accordance with law were undertaken by the statutory authority. Merely because there is a power conferred on the authority to initiate confiscation proceedings, unless and until such confiscation proceedings are initiated and adjudicated in accordance with law, it cannot be said that the criminal proceedings and confiscation proceedings are different, and therefore, the amount deposited by the petitioner cannot be released to the petitioner after adjudication of the proceedings by the Magistrate. 10. In my considered view, the 1st respondent failed egregiously in appreciating the law in terms of the provisions of the Sand Act, and no adjudication was undertaken in contemplation of the provisions of the said Act, and therefore, Ext.P6 order suffers from the vice of arbitrariness, illegality and perversity, justifying interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, I quash Ext.P6 order passed by the 1st respondent dated 31.05.2018, and there will be a direction to release the amount of Rs.44,640/-deposited by the petitioner, evident from Ext.P2 receipt dated 01.10.2010, at the earliest, and at any rate, within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.