Abdul Salam B.K. v. State of Kerala and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON** **FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013/15TH BHADRA, 1935** **WP(C).No. 22199 of 2013 (Y) ----------------------------** **PETITIONER(S): -------------ABDUL SALAM B.K. S/O.FASILA, RESIDING ATG KARTHIKUNNU, H.NO.17/181 ARAYI, KANHANGAD SOUTH P.O., HOSDURG TALUK KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.T.MADHU SMT.C.R.SARADAMANI** **RESPONDENT(S):** **---------------** **1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUEL DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** **2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KASARAGOD, CIVIL STATION, VIDYANAGAR P.O. KASARAGOD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671123.** **3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER KASARAGOD AT KANHANGAD-671125.** **4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER HOSDURG POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671531.** **BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.C.VINCENT** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-09-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **MNS** ## **WP(C).No. 22199 of 2013 (Y)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:** **EXT.P-1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 5-7-2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE the 4TH RESPONDENT.** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A TO JUDGE** ## **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **W.P.(c) No.22199 OF 2013** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6[th] day of September, 2013 ## **JUDGMENT** Petitioner is the owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No. KL-11-P-5776 and the said vehicle has been detained by the fourth 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. Despite filing Ext.P1 requesting the fourth respondent to send the sample for analysis, till this date no action has been taken by the said respondent and hence the writ petition. The case of the petitioner is that, because of the delay from the part of the third respondent, the interim custody of the vehicle is still to be obtained. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well 3. A Full Bench of this Court in **Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala** 2 W.P.(C)No.22199/2013 **= [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.22199/2013 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 W.P.(C)No.22199/2013 4 matter shall be finally disposed of within 'six weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, after obtaining the analysis report of sand tested in a competent laboratory. . It is made clear that, on final adjudication, if it is proved that the petitioner was transporting 'river sand' in contravention of the provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001, further proceedings shall be pursued in accordance with the law declared by Division Bench of this Court in **Sujith v. State of Kerala** ( 2012 (2) KLT 547). After testing, if it is revealed that the commodity transported by the petitioner is not the river sand and if any offence is made out under the relevant provisions of Mines and Mineral ( Development and Regulation ) Act, 1957 and the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967, an opportunity of compounding the offence shall be given to the petitioner in view of the willingness expressed from the part of the petitioner to have the offence compounded and conceding the guilt, this Court finds it fit and proper to direct the fourth respondent to consider the application, if any, filed by the petitioner for compounding the offence and pass appropriate W.P.(C)No.22199/2013 5 orders, if the petitioner satisfies a sum of **Rs. 25,000/-** ( Rupees Twenty **.** Five thousand) It is ordered accordingly. It is made clear that once no the offence alleged against the petitioner is compounded, prosecution proceedings shall be pursued against him. The Writ Petition is disposed of. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the concerned respondent for further steps. The Writ Petition is disposed of. **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE** sv. W.P.(C)No.22199/2013 6 W.P.(C)No.22199/2013 7