Basheer Abdulla v. District Collector, Thrissur; Revenue Divisional Officer, Thrissur; Sub Inspector of Police, Perumpadappu Police Station, Thrissur

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON** **MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013/18TH BHADRA, 1935** ## **WP(C).No. 22306 of 2013 (K)** **---------------------------------------** **PETITIONER(S)/** **-----------------------** **BASHEER ABDULLA 4/381, MAVATHODI HOUSE, VETTIKATTIRI VALLATHOLE NAGAR, THRISSUR.** **BY ADV. SRI.K.PRAVEEN KUMAR** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT :** **----------------------------------------------------** **1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR THRISSUR-680 021.** **2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER THRISSUR-680 021.** **3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PERUMPADAPPU POLICE STATION, THRISSUR-680 023.** **BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.C.VINCENT** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-09-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **WP(C).No. 22306 of 2013 (K)** **---------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **-------------------------------------** **P1 : COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE VEHICLE NO.KL-10/S 2832.** **P2 : COPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHAZAR.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS** **---------------------------------------** **NIL** **TRUE COPY** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **tss** ## **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **W.P.(c) No. 22306 OF 2013** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of September, 2013 ## **JUDGMENT** Petitioner is the owner of the goods carriage bearing registration No.KL 10-S-2832 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 concerned respondent to release the vehicle, but till this date no action has been taken by those respondents 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 the W.P.(C) No. 22306/2013 2 statutory authority, before whom the application for interim custody is pending, to 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 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 W.P.(C) No. 22306/2013 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. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not actually committed any offence and that even according to the respondents, the allegation is that river sand was attempted to be transported illegally as discernible from Ext.P2 Mahazar. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the sand extracted from the river was kept stored nearby the river which aspect is not disputed in this writ petition. 5. In the said circumstance, the second respondent is directed to 4 W.P.(C) No. 22306/2013 consider the application preferred by the petitioner for granting interim custody of the vehicle within two weeks. Adjudication shall be finalised within six weeks thereafter. It is also open for the concerned respondents 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 offence is made out. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the Writ Petition before the concerned authority for appropriate action. The writ petition is disposed of. **Sd/-** ## **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON** dpk **JUDGE** **/True copy/ P.S to Judge.** W.P.(C) No. 22306/2013 5 W.P.(C) No. 22306/2013 6 **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, Judge.** dpk W.P.(C) No. 22306/2013 7