High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2013-12-17Writ petition disposed of with directions to de...

Akbar v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirur; Sub Inspector of Police, Tirur

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 31187 of 2013 (W)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P.R.Ramachandra Menon
Judgment Date: 2013-12-17
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition disposed of. The first respondent is directed to consider the petitioner’s application to release the vehicle and pass appropriate order in accordance with law, granting interim custody forthwith on satisfying the requirements. The decision must be guided by the Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala framework (including 30% deposit, balance security, and six-week disposal target) and it is open to take prosecution steps as clarified in Sujith v. State of Kerala. The petitioner must bring a copy of this judgment before the concerned authority. The court emphasizes timely, lawful action and foresees interim custody as permissible under the stated conditions.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of with directions to decide interim custody in light of the Shan C.T. framework and to proceed in accordance with law; interim custody granted forthwith upon compliance with conditions, and prosecution steps may be taken as clarified.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Akbar, S/o. Baputty

Respondents

Revenue Divisional Officer / Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tirur, Malappuram District-676101
The Sub Inspector of Police, Tirur Police Station, Malappuram District-676101

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Sri. Babu S. Nair

Counsels for Respondents

• Government Pleader SMT. M.J. Rajasree

Case Synopsis & Summary

Akbar, owner of vehicle KL-7AA/9916, challenges the detention of his vehicle on the assertion that it was used for transport of river sand in violation of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Rules, 2002. He approached the first respondent for release, but no action had been taken. The High Court invokes the guidance from Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala, a Full Bench decision, to determine interim custody of vehicles under the Act and Rules. The judgment directs that applications for interim custody be dealt with in light of the Act and the Full Bench’s guidelines, notably: (i) interim custody can be granted on deposit of 30% of the vehicle’s value as determined by the appropriate authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, with a bank guarantee or immovable property security for the balance, to be adjusted with the final confiscation outcome; (ii) confiscation proceedings under S.23 should be concluded within six weeks of seizure, failing which interim custody may be granted on the stated conditions; and (iii) the owner must be served with notice within three days of seizure and objections filed within a week. The court then directs the first respondent to decide the petitioner’s application to release the vehicle in accordance with law and the Shan C.T. framework. It also notes that prosecution steps may be taken as clarified in Sujith v. State of Kerala. The writ petition is disposed of with directions for timely, lawful action.

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 Act as applied in the context of confiscation proceedings

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner argues that his vehicle was illegally detained while being used for legitimate transport of river sand under the Rules, and seeks interim custody release. He relies on the Full Bench decision in Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala to contend that interim custody can be granted with proper security, deposit, and timely disposal of the confiscation proceedings; he requests that the authorities be directed to decide the application in light of those principles and to grant interim custody forthwith, subject to the conditions stated (30% deposit, security, and six-week disposal target).

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submit that the matter must be decided strictly under the statutory regime governing river sand confiscations. They advocate adherence to the Act and Rules and adherence to due process, including timely action and compliance with Section 23 of the Act. They rely on the authorities cited to support orderly disposal and the possibility of taking prosecution steps in connection with the proceedings.

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 laid down the procedural framework for interim custody; the present court adopts these guidelines and directs adherence to them.
Sujith v. State of Kerala	(2012 (2) KLT 547)	Positive	Cited for the procedural note that prosecution steps may be taken in connection with the confiscation proceedings as clarified by the Division Bench.

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 Akbar v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirur; Sub Inspector of Police, Tirur 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 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2013/26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935** ## **WP(C).No. 31187 of 2013 (W)** **----------------------------** **PETITIONER :** **--------------------------** **AKBAR, S/O. BAPUTTY,AGED 35 YEARS, MOOSANTEVEETIL HOUSE, PADINJAREKKARA, PURATHOOR, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR** **RESPONDENT(S):** - **----------------------------** **1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER/SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 101.** **2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TIRUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 101.** **BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.J.RAJASREE** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-12-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** **WP(C).No. 31187 of 2013 (W)** **-----------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS -------------------------------------** **P1 : COPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHAZAR PREPARED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD.22.7.2013.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL** **/TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE** **sts** ## **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **W.P.(c) No.31187 OF 2013** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17[th] day of December, 2013 ## **JUDGMENT** Petitioner is the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.KL- 7AA/9916 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 1[st] respondent to release the vehicle, but till this date no action has been taken by the 1[st] 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 such applications for interim custody should be dealt with. Therefore, all that is necessary in the Writ Petition is to direct that the W.P.(C)No.31187/2013 2 statutory authority, before whom the application for interim custody is pending, shall deal with the application in the light of the provisions of the Act referred above and in the manner as directed by the Full Bench of this Court in the judgment referred as above. Operative portion of the said judgment as contained in paragraph 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 W.P.(C)No.31187/2013 3 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. In the said circumstance, the first respondent 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 proceedings, as made clear by the Division Bench of this Court in **Sujith v. State of Kerala** ( 2012 (2) KLT 547). The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment along with a W.P.(C)No.31187/2013 4 copy of the Writ Petition before the concerned authority for appropriate action. Writ petition is disposed of. sv **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE** W.P.(C)No.31187/2013 5 **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE** sv. W.P.(C)No.31187/2013 6