High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2013-02-22Writ petition disposed of.

Anoop M.P. v. District Collector, Kasaragod & The Sub Inspector of Police, Chandhera, Kasaragod District

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No. 5115/2013 (L)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. R. Ramachandra Menon
Judgment Date: 2013-02-22
Court Decision / Holding: Second respondent is directed to consider the applicant's request for release of the vehicle and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, granting interim custody forthwith on satisfying the requirements. The directions from Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala shall be followed: deposit 30% of the vehicle's value in cash, furnish bank guarantee or immovable property security for the balance; the balance to follow final confiscation. S.23 proceedings should be concluded within six weeks from seizure; if not possible, interim custody with the same terms may be granted. The owner shall be put on notice within three days of seizure, and objections to confiscation may be filed within a week. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the concerned authority. Writ petition disposed of.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Anoop M.P., s/o Paulose

Respondents

District Collector, Kasaragod
Sub Inspector of Police, Chandhera, Kasaragod District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. O.D. Sivadas

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. K.T. Lilly (Government Pleader)

Case Synopsis & Summary

Petitioner Anoop M.P., owner of lorry KA 01/AA 7512, 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 seeking release, but no action has been taken. The court notes that the petition concerns interim custody of a vehicle used in transporting sand and relies on the Full Bench decision in Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala (2010 (3) KHC 333; 2010(3)KLT 413) which governs such interim custody applications. The court directs that the statutory authority adjudicating the interim custody application must decide in light of that decision. The relevant portions of the Shan C.T. judgment authorize interim custody on deposit of 30% of the vehicle’s value, as determined by the appropriate authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, in cash, plus a bank guarantee or immovable property security for the balance; the amounts would follow the final outcome of confiscation. It also directs that confiscation proceedings under S.23 be concluded within six weeks of seizure, and if not possible, interim custody may still be granted on the stated terms, with the owner to be notified within three days and objections fileable within a week. In the circumstances, the second respondent is directed to consider the application and pass appropriate orders granting interim custody forthwith if the conditions are satisfied; the writ petition is disposed of.

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 Rules, 2002Motor Vehicles Act

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Petitioner contends that the vehicle detained on account of alleged violation of the Kerala Sand Rules should be released on interim custody. He relies on Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala for a prompt decision, and asks the competent authority to decide the application in the light of the Act and the Full Bench directions. He requests release on conditions that include deposit of 30% of the vehicle’s value and furnishing security for the balance, with the balance to follow the final outcome of the confiscation proceedings. He also seeks that the authority abide by the timeframes and issue a notice to the owner on seizure, with an opportunity to make objections within a week.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that interim custody must be handled strictly in accordance with the Kerala Sand Rules and the Motor Vehicles Act, with the six-week deadline for confiscation proceedings under S.23, or else interim custody under the Shan C.T. framework. They argue for adherence to statutory procedures and caution that without following the prescribed process and deposit/security requirements, interim custody should not be granted.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala	2010 (3) KHC 333; 2010(3)KLT 413	Positive	Cited as controlling authority laying down the manner in which interim custody applications under the relevant Act should be dealt with, including conditions and timelines, and applied by the court.

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 Anoop M.P. v. District Collector, Kasaragod & The Sub Inspector of Police, Chandhera, Kasaragod District 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** ## **FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/3RD PHALGUNA 1934** ## **WP(C).No. 5115 of 2013 (L)** **--------------------------** **PETITIONER(S): --------------------------** **ANOOP M.P, S/O.PAULOSE, NO.13/8, 2ND MAIN ROAD, 5TH CROSS, KALASIPALAYAM NEW EXTENSION, BANGALORE.** **BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** - **----------------------------** **1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD.PIN-671 121** **2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHANDHERA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.PIN-671 121** **R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.T.LILLY** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** ## **WP(C)NO.5115/2013** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **P1 COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF VEHICLE NO.KA 01/AA 7512 P2 COPY OF THE PERMIT OF NO.KA 01/AA 7512** **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL** **/TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE** **sts** ## **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **W.P.(c) No.5115 OF 2013** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22[nd] day of February, 2013 ## **JUDGMENT** Petitioner is stated as the owner of the lorry bearing registration No.KA 01/AA 7512 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 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** **= [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 statutory authority, before whom the application for interim custody is pending, shall deal with the application in the light of the provisions of W.P.(C)No.5115/2013 2 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 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 W.P.(C)No.5115/2013 3 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 second 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. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment along with a 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.5115/2013 4 sv. W.P.(C)No.5115/2013 5 W.P.(C)No.5115/2013 6