High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2013-11-12Writ Petition disposed of; interim custody as p...

Junaise v. Sub Inspector of Police, Sri Krishnapuram Police Station, Palakkad District; Revenue Divisional Officer, Ottappalam; Director, Mining and Geology

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 27725 of 2013 (M)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. R. Ramachandra Menon
Judgment Date: 2013-11-12
Court Decision / Holding: The Writ Petition is disposed of. The second respondent is directed to consider the petitioner’s request for interim custody in accordance with the Full Bench decision in Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala (2010 (3) KHC 333) as expeditiously as possible, within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The confiscation proceedings under the Act should be concluded within six weeks from seizure, and the authorities should obtain the analysis report of the sand. The proceedings should be finalized by taking steps consistent with Sujith v. State of Kerala (2012 (2) KLT 547). The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with the writ petition before the second respondent for further action.
Final Disposition: Writ Petition disposed of; interim custody as per Shan C.T.; final disposal within six weeks with analysis report; prosecution steps to follow as per Sujith v. State of Kerala.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

JUNAISE, aged 29 years, S/O. HAMSA, Nambiyath House, Pombra P.O., Karinkuzhy 2 Village, Ottappalam Taluk, Palakkad District (Owner of the lorry bearing registration no. KL-10-X-9115)

Respondents

The Sub Inspector of Police, Sri Krishnapuram Police Station, Palakkad District-679101
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ottappalam, Palakkad District-679101
The Director, Mining and Geology, Office of the Mining and Geology, Kesavadasapuram, PATTAM, Thiruvananthapuram-695001

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ

Counsels for Respondents

• GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, Junaise, owner of the lorry KL-10-X-9115, challenges detention of the vehicle by the police under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Rules, 2002, on the allegation that it transported river sand in contravention of the rules. He contends that at the time of interception the vehicle carried ordinary sand and has filed Exts. P2 and P3 representations seeking sample analysis by the Mining and Geology Department and adjudication, but the second respondent has not taken any action. The matter is approached in light of a key pronouncement by a Full Bench in Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala, which lays down the framework for interim custody of seized vehicles and the conditions under which such custody may be granted, including deposit of 30% of the vehicle’s value and a bank guarantee or immovable security for the balance, with the fate of the interim custody linked to the final confiscation proceedings. The judgment further directs that confiscation proceedings be concluded within six weeks from seizure, with notice and objection periods, to avoid delay. The court directs the second respondent to consider the petitioner’s request for interim custody in accordance with the Shan C.T. framework, within one week, and to dispose of the matter within six weeks, incorporating an analysis report. Prosecution steps are to be taken as per Sujith v. State of Kerala. The petitioner is to furnish a copy of this judgment to the second respondent, and 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

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala and others (2010 (3) KHC 333; 2010 (3) KLT 413)
Sujith v. State of Kerala (2012 (2) KLT 547)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner submits that the vehicle was carrying ordinary sand at the time of interception and seeks interim custody of the vehicle under the Kerala Sand Rules. He has produced Exts. P2 and P3 representations requesting sample analysis by the Mining and Geology Department and adjudication proceedings, which have not been completed. He prays for interim custody with conditions and an expeditious resolution of the matter in accordance with the law.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents advocate applying the statutory framework under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Rules, 2002, and rely on the guiding principles laid down in Shan C.T. to determine interim custody and rapid resolution of confiscation proceedings, with due regard to the safeguards and timelines, including completion of proceedings within six weeks and provision for notice and objections.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala and others	2010 (3) KHC 333; 2010 (3) KLT 413	Positive	Full Bench ruling providing interim custody framework—applied as the controlling principle.
Sujith v. State of Kerala	2012 (2) KLT 547	Positive	Used to mandate prosecution steps and timely resolution following the bench decision.
W.P.(C) No. 25045 of 2013	W.P.(C) No. 25045 of 2013	Mentioned Only	Referenced as a prior judgment; not relied upon as the primary controlling authority in the instant matter.

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 Junaise v. Sub Inspector of Police, Sri Krishnapuram Police Station, Palakkad District; Revenue Divisional Officer, Ottappalam; Director, Mining and Geology 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 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/21ST KARTHIKA, 1935** ## **WP(C).No. 27725 of 2013 (M)** **----------------------------** **PETITIONER(S):** **--------------** **JUNAISE, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.HAMSA, NAMBIYATH HOUSE, POMBRA P.O., KARINKUZHY 2 VILLAGE, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT (OWNER OF THE LORRY BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL-10-X-9115)** **BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ** **RESPONDENT(S):** **--------------** **1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SRIKRISHNAPURAM POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679101.** **2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,** - **OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679101.** **3. THE DIRECTOR,** - **MINING AND GEOLOGY, OFFICE OF THE MINING AND GEOLOGY, KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** **BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **rvs/** **WP(C).No. 27725 of 2013 (M)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :** **-----------------------** **EXT. P1: COPY OF THE MAHASAR DATED 28.10.2013 PREPARED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.** **EXT. P2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29.10.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT.** **EXT. P3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 29.10.2013.** **EXT. P4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 11.10.2013 IN WPC.NO.25045 OF 2013.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:** **------------------------** **NIL.** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A.TO JUDGE** **rvs/** ## **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **W.P.(c) No.27725 OF 2013** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12[th] day of November, 2013 ## **JUDGMENT** Petitioner is the owner of vehicle bearing Registration No. KL10-X-9115 and the said vehicle has been detained by the second 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 and he has filed Exts.P2 and P3 representations requesting to send the sample to the Mining and Geology Department for analysis and to complete the adjudication proceedings. 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** W.P.(C)No.27725/2013 2 **= [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.27725/2013 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 4 W.P.(C)No.27725/2013 matter shall be finally disposed of within 'six weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. It is also made clear that the proceedings as above shall be finalised also by obtaining the analysis report of the sand. It is 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 shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the second respondent for further steps. The Writ Petition is disposed of. ## **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE** sv. W.P.(C)No.27725/2013 5 W.P.(C)No.27725/2013 6 ## **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON** **JUDGE** sv. W.P.(C)No.27725/2013 7 **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE** sv. W.P.(C)No.27725/2013 8