High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2013-11-19Writ Petition disposed of with directions to di...

Abbas v. Sub Inspector of Police, Kondotty Police Station; Sub Divisional Magistrate, Perinthalmanna; Director, Mining and Geology, Kerala

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 28296 of 2013 (J)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. R. Ramachandra Menon
Judgment Date: 2013-11-19
Court Decision / Holding: The Writ Petition is disposed of. The second respondent is directed to consider the petitioner’s request for interim custody in accordance with the law and the Full Bench decision in Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala, expeditiously and, in any event, within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The matter should be finally disposed of within six weeks from the date of receipt of the judgment copy, after obtaining the lab analysis report of the sand. The proceedings should be finalized after lab confirmation of whether the commodity is river sand, with steps for possible prosecution as per the Division Bench guidance in Sujith v. State of Kerala if river sand is confirmed.
Final Disposition: Writ Petition disposed of with directions to dispose of interim custody proceedings within specified timeframes and to finalize after lab analysis; aims to expeditiously resolve the matter.”

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Abbas

Respondents

The Sub Inspector of Police, Kondotty Police Station, Malappuram District
The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Perinthalmanna, Malappuram District
Director, Mining and Geology Office of the Mining and Geology, Kesavadasapuram Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• P. M. Ziraj

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt K. T. Lilly

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner Abbas, owner of a lorry KL-10T-9975, was detained by the Kondotty Police on the ground that the vehicle had been used for transporting river sand in violation of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Rules, 2002. Abbas contends that the vehicle was carrying ordinary sand and has submitted representations (Exts. P2 and P3) requesting analysis of a sample by the Mining and Geology Department and urging completion of adjudication. He alleges inaction by the 2nd respondent and seeks interim custody of the vehicle pending resolution of the proceedings. The court recalls the principle laid down by a Full Bench in Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala (2010) 3 KHC 333, 2010(3) KLT 413, directing how interim custody should be handled when there is an investigation or adjudication under the Act. The judgment directs that the statutory authority act in accordance with the Act and the Shan C.T. guidelines, expedite proceedings, obtain lab analysis, and finalize the proceedings within six weeks, with interim custody available under the specified conditions (deposit of 30% of vehicle value, bank guarantee or immovable security). The decision ultimately disposes of the writ petition, requiring action within the determined timeframe and clarifying steps if river sand is confirmed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Rules, 2002Section 23 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act (as referred)Motor Vehicles Act (value determination by appropriate authority)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the detainment of his lorry KL-10T-9975 was improper as the vehicle was allegedly used for transporting river sand in contravention of the Kerala River Banks Rules, 2002. He submits Exts. P2 and P3 seeking analysis of the sample by the Mining and Geology Department and demands completion of adjudication. Urging timely action, he seeks interim custody of the vehicle pending proceedings. Relying on the Full Bench decision in Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala, he argues that interim custody is permissible under strict conditions, including deposit of 30% of the vehicle’s value and a bank guarantee or immovable security, with the procedural timeline to avoid unduly prolonged proceedings. He stresses that lab analysis should be obtained and the case resolved expeditiously.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the matter involves alleged violation of the river-sand regime under the Kerala Rules and that the appropriate authority must follow due process under the Act. They cite S.23 proceedings for confiscation and emphasize that the adjudication must be concluded within six weeks from seizure, or the interim custody terms may apply. They rely on Shan C.T. and Sujith v. State of Kerala to justify expeditious disposal and laboratory confirmation before taking broader penal steps, including prosecution if river sand is confirmed. They maintain that the statutory framework requires adherence to the Act and the Rules, with final disposal contingent on lab results and timely action.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala and others	2010 (3) KHC 333; 2010(3)KLT 413	Positive	Full Bench laid down principles for interim custody including deposits and security, which the court adopts in directing interim custody under Shan C.T. doctrine.
Sujith v. State of Kerala	2012 (2) KLT 547	Positive	Division Bench guidance on actions following lab analysis and applicability to river sand determinations is used to guide prosecution steps if river sand is confirmed.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Abbas v. Sub Inspector of Police, Kondotty Police Station; Sub Divisional Magistrate, Perinthalmanna; Director, Mining and Geology, Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON** ## **TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/28TH KARTHIKA, 1935** ## **WP(C).No. 28296 of 2013 (J)** **----------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:** **------------------------------------------------** **ABBAS, AGED 42 YEARS S/O.UNYAN KUTTY, VAKYATHODI HOUSE, OMANOOR P O MALAPPURAM(OWNER OF LORRY BEARING REGISTRATION NUMBER KL-10T-9975)** ## **BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ** **RESPONDENT(S):** - **-------------------------** **1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KONDOTTY POLICE STATION MALAPPURAM DIST, PIN-676562** ## **2. THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, PERINTHALMANNA,** - **MALAPPURAM DIST, PIN-680308** ## **3. THE DIRECTOR** - **MINING AND GEOLOGY OFFICE OF THE MINING AND GEOLOGY, KESAVADASAPURAM PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001** ## **BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT K.T. LILLY** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No. 28296 of 2013 (J)** **----------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **P1:-TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR PREPARED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DTD 26/9/2013** **P2:-TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD 27/9/2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE TE 2ND RESPONDENT** **P3:-TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD 27/9/2013** **P4:-TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DTD 11/10/2013 IN WPC NO 25045 OF 2013** **RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **SKV** ## **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **W.P.(c) No.28296 OF 2013** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19[th] day of November, 2013 ## **JUDGMENT** Petitioner is the owner of vehicle bearing Registration No. KL10-T-9975 and the said vehicle has been detained by the second respondent alleging that the vehicle was used for transportation of river sand in violation of the provisions contained in the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Rules, 2002. According to the petitioner, the vehicle was carrying ordinary sand at the time of interception and he has filed Exts.P2 and P3 representations requesting to send the sample to the Mining and Geology Department for analysis and to complete the adjudication proceedings. But till this date no action has been taken by the second respondent and hence the writ petition. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well 3. A Full Bench of this Court in **Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala** W.P.(C)No.28296/2013 2 **= [2010 (3) KHC 333 2010(3)KLT 413]** has laid down the manner in which the request for interim custody should be dealt with. Therefore, all what is necessary in the Writ Petition is to direct that the statutory authority to deal with the matter in the light of the provisions of the Act referred to above and in the manner as directed by the Full Bench of this Court in the judgment referred to above. Operative portion of the said judgment as contained in paragraphs 12 and 13 reads as follows: “12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that interim custody of the vehicle can be granted on condition that the owner of the vehicle deposits 30% of the value of the vehicle as determined by the appropriate authority under the Motor Vehicles Act in cash and a further condition that the owner of the vehicle should provide either a bank guarantee or immovable property security for the balance of the value of the vehicle. The amount so deposited and the security furnished would follow the final outcome of the confiscation proceedings. 13. We also deem it appropriate to direct that the proceedings under S.23 of the above W.P.(C)No.28296/2013 3 mentioned Act confiscating the vehicle shall be concluded within six weeks from the date of seizure of the vehicle as far as possible, in which case the need to consider the interim custody of the vehicle may not normally arise. But if for any reason the authorities under the Act are not able to conclude the proceedings within the period of six weeks mentioned above, the interim custody of the vehicle shall be given to the owner on the conditions specified earlier. It is also made clear that to avoid any controversy and the allegations of undue delay on the part of either party to the proceedings, the competent authority shall put the owner on notice within a period of three days of the date of seizure and the owner or any other person interested in the vehicle shall file his objections to the confiscation within a week thereafter.” 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the second respondent is directed to consider the request of the petitioner for interim custody, in accordance with the law declared by the Full Bench of this Court in _**Shan C.T. vs. State of Kerala and others**_ **(2010 (3) KHC 333 )** as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 'one week' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The 4 W.P.(C)No.28296/2013 matter shall be finally disposed of within 'six weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. It is also made clear that the proceedings as above shall be finalised after by obtaining the lab analysis report of the sand. It is for the concerned respondent to take appropriate steps in connection with the prosecution proceedings, as made clear by the **Division Bench of this Court in Sujith v. State of Kerala** ( 2012 (2) KLT 547), if the commodity tested is confirmed as 'river sand'. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the second respondent for further steps. The Writ Petition is disposed of. ## **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE** sv. W.P.(C)No.28296/2013 5 W.P.(C)No.28296/2013 6 ## **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON** **JUDGE** sv. W.P.(C)No.28296/2013 7 **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE** sv. W.P.(C)No.28296/2013 8