High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2013-10-03Writ Petition disposed of

Abdul Kareem s/o Kuhammed v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 21090 of 2013 (I)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. R. Ramachandra Menon
Judgment Date: 2013-10-03
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is disposed of. The Court directs that the interim custody matter be dealt with in accordance with the Shan C.T. framework. The 4th respondent is to consider the petitioner’s application for release and pass appropriate orders in conformity with law, granting interim custody forthwith if requirements are satisfied. It is open for the concerned respondent to take steps in connection with the prosecution as clarified by Sujith v. State of Kerala. The District Collector remains the revisional authority under Ordinance No. 60/2012. The petitioner is to furnish a copy of this judgment and the writ petition as required. Notice to the owner within three days of seizure and objections to confiscation to be filed within one week thereafter. Six weeks for concluding proceedings under S.23, failing which interim custody may be extended on the set terms.
Final Disposition: Writ Petition disposed of

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Abdul Kareem s/o Kuhammed

Respondents

State of Kerala
District Collector
S.I. of Police, Chandera Police Station (Kasaragod District)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri I. V. Pramod

Counsels for Respondents

• Government Pleader SMT. K.T. Lilly

Case Synopsis & Summary

Petitioner Abdul Kareem, owner of KL 18 C 2387, challenges the detention of his vehicle for alleged violation of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Rules, 2002. He approached the second respondent for release, but no action has been taken. The court relies on the Full Bench decision in Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala (2010) to guide interim custody, directing the statutory authority to decide the matter under the Act as per Shan C.T.’s directions. Paragraphs 12 and 13 of Shan C.T. provide that interim custody can be granted if the owner deposits 30% of the vehicle’s value, as determined by the appropriate authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, in cash, and furnishes either a bank guarantee or immovable property security for the balance. The proceedings under Section 23 of the Act should be concluded within six weeks from seizure; if not possible, interim custody may be granted on the same terms, with the owner to be notified within three days of seizure and objections to confiscation to be filed within a week thereafter. Ordinance No. 60/2012 delegates adjudication to the Revenue Divisional Officer, making the District Collector the revisional authority; the 4th respondent is directed to consider the release application and pass orders in accordance with law, directing prosecution steps as needed. The court also cites Sujith v. State of Kerala for procedural clarity. The writ petition is disposed of with these directions.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Rules, 2002Ordinance No. 60/2012Section 23 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand ActMotor Vehicles Act

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends for interim release of his vehicle detained on the allegation of transporting river sand in contravention of the Kerala River Sand Rules. He seeks interim custody under the framework laid down by the Full Bench in Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala, arguing for a prompt decision and that the statutory authority decide the matter in light of the Act and the Shan C.T. directives, including deposit of 30% of the vehicle’s value with security for the balance and expeditious handling of confiscation proceedings.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents urge adherence to statutory procedures under the Kerala Act and the MV Act, maintaining detention until proper proceedings are completed. They rely on the Shan C.T. framework for interim custody and emphasize timely completion of proceedings, with the District Collector as the revisional authority under Ordinance No. 60/2012, while ensuring that due process and prosecution steps viz. under Sujith v. State of Kerala are observed.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala	2010 (3) KHC 333; 2010(3)KLT 413	Positive	Full Bench decision establishing the framework for interim custody; the present case adopts and applies those directives.
Sujith v. State of Kerala	2012 (2) KLT 547	Positive	Used to clarify procedural steps in prosecutions and related actions following interim custody decisions.

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 Abdul Kareem s/o Kuhammed v. State of Kerala and Others 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** ## **THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/11TH ASWINA, 1935** ## **WP(C).No. 21090 of 2013 (I)** **----------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** **--------------------------** **ABDUL KAREEM S/O.KUHAMMED, 9/368, PUTHIYAPURAYIL HOUSE MAMBRAM PANCHAYAT, VENGAD P.O, THALASSERY KANNUR DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.I.V.PRAMOD** **RESPONDENT(S):** - **----------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA** - **REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIATE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.** ## **2. THE DISRICT COLLECTOR** - **COLLECTORATE, VIDYA NAGAR, KASARAGOD PIN. 671 001** ## **3. S.I OF POLICE** - **CHANDERA POLICE STATION, POST CHANDERA KASARAGOD DISTRICT – 671 017** **BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.T.LILLY** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-102013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No. 21090 of 2013 (I)** **----------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **-------------------------------------** **EXHIBIT P1. COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF THE VEHICLE BEARING REGISTRATION KL.18.C.2357.** **EXHIBIT P2. COPY OF THE PASS BEARING NO.2154158 DATED 14.8.2013.** **RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A. TO JUDGE SKV** ## **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **W.P.(c) No. 21090 OF 2013** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3[rd] day of October, 2013 ## **JUDGMENT** Petitioner is the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. KL 18 C 2387 and the said vehicle has been detained on the allegation 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, he has approached the second respondent to release the vehicle, but till this date no action has been taken by the said 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** **= [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 W.P.(C)No.21090/2013 2 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 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 W.P.(C)No.21090/2013 3 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. By virtue of ordinance No. 60/2012, the power and authority to deal with adjudication proceedings is delegated upon the Revenue Divisional Officer, making the District Collector as the revisional authority. In the said circumstances, the additional fourth respondent ( impleaded vide order dated 03/10/2013 in I.A.No.12993/2013) is directed to consider the application preferred by the petitioner to release the vehicle and pass appropriate order in accordance with law, as aforesaid, granting interim custody of the vehicle forthwith, on satisfying the requirements. It is also open for the concerned respondent to take appropriate steps in connection with the prosecution W.P.(C)No.21090/2013 4 proceedings, as made clear by the Division Bench of this Court in **Sujith v. State of Kerala** ( 2012 (2) KLT 547). 5. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition and I.A.No.12993/2013 before the concerned respondent for further steps. The Writ Petition is disposed of. ## **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE** sv. W.P.(C)No.21090/2013 5 **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE** W.P.(C)No.21090/2013 6 sv.