High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2013-11-29Writ Petition is disposed of.

Manoj v. The Sub Inspector of Police, Ambalathara Police Station, Kasaragod District; Revenue Divisional Officer, Kasaragod; District Collector, Kasaragod; Director, Mining and Geology, Thiruvananthapuram

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 28954 of 2013 (T)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. R. Ramachandra Menon
Judgment Date: 2013-11-29
Court Decision / Holding: Second respondent is directed to consider the petitioner’s request for interim custody in light of the Full Bench decision in Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala, and to act expeditiously, within one week from receipt of the judgment copy. The matter shall be finally disposed of within six weeks from the date of receipt of the judgment, after obtaining the lab analysis report of the sand. If river sand is confirmed, appropriate prosecution steps should be taken as guided by Sujith v. State of Kerala. The petitioner shall furnish a copy of this judgment to the second respondent for further steps. The writ petition is disposed of.
Final Disposition: Writ Petition is disposed of.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Manoj, owner of vehicle KL-14-N-8129

Respondents

The Sub Inspector of Police, Ambalathara Police Station, Kasaragod District
The Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Kasaragod District
The District Collector, Kasaragod District
The Director, Mining and Geology, Thiruvananthapuram

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• P. M. Ziraj (Advocate)

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Ramprasad Unni, Government Pleader

Case Synopsis & Summary

Manoj, owner of vehicle KL-14-N-8129, challenges detention of his lorry by the Ambalathara Police, Kasaragod District, on the allegation that it was used to transport river sand in violation of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Rules, 2002. He claims the vehicle was carrying ordinary sand at the time of interception and has filed representations (Exhibits P1 and P2) requesting laboratory analysis by the Mining and Geology Department and completion of adjudication proceedings; however, no action was taken. The court notes the absence of any action and relies on the High Court Full Bench decision in Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala regarding interim custody. The judgment directs the statutory authority to deal with the matter in light of that decision and to act promptly. It directs the second respondent to consider the request for interim custody in accordance with the Full Bench rules, to conclude proceedings within six weeks, to obtain laboratory analysis of the sand, and to proceed with prosecution steps if the material is river sand. The petitioner is required to produce a copy of the judgment to the second respondent, and the writ petition is disposed of with directions for expeditious action.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Rules, 2002Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2002 – Section 23Motor Vehicles Act

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner asserts that the lorry carrying KL-14-N-8129 was transporting ordinary sand at the time of interception and denies river sand; he seeks interim custody of the vehicle and requests that samples be analyzed by the Mining and Geology Department with adjudication proceedings completed. He has produced representations (Exhibits P1 and P2) requesting analysis and expeditious action; he urges that no action has been taken on these representations.

Contentions of Respondents

Not explicitly set out in detail in the judgment. The matter is addressed under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Rules, 2002, with the court directing adherence to the law and timely analysis and disposal, following the Full Bench decision in Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala and others	2010 (3) KHC 333; 2010 (3) KLT 413	Positive	Cited as the controlling Full Bench authority on interim custody of seized vehicles; the judgment directs interim custody under the conditions laid down in that decision.
Sujith v. State of Kerala	2012 (2) KLT 547	Positive	Cited to emphasize the need for subsequent steps and lab analysis if the commodity is river sand, including prosecution steps if confirmed.

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 Manoj v. The Sub Inspector of Police, Ambalathara Police Station, Kasaragod District; Revenue Divisional Officer, Kasaragod; District Collector, Kasaragod; Director, Mining and Geology, Thiruvananthapuram 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 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/8TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935** ## **WP(C).No. 28954 of 2013 (T)** **----------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:** **-----------------------------------------** **MANOJ, AGED 29 YEARS S/O.KALYANI, KUNNUPARA, PARAVANADUKKAM P.O. THEKKIL VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK KASARAGOD DISTRICT.(OWNER OF THE LORRY BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL-14-N-8129)** **BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:** **------------------------------------------------** **1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AMBALATHARA POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT - PIN - 671 315.** ## **2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER (RDO), STATION, KANHANAGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT PIN - 671 315.** ## **3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,** - **CIVIL STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671 315.** ## **4. THE DIRECTOR, MINING AND GEOLOGY,** - **OFFICE OF THE MINING AND GELOGY KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** ## **R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. RAMPRASAD UNNI** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **WP(C).No. 28954 of 2013 (T)** ## **--------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **-------------------------------------** **EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 22.11.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT** **EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE RERESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 22.11.2013** **EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONBOURABLE COURT DATED 11.10.2013 IN WPC NO.25045 OF 2013** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL** **---------------------------------------** ## **// TRUE COPY //** **P.A TO JUDGE** **SB** ## **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **W.P.(c) No. 28954 OF 2013** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29[th] day of November, 2013 ## **JUDGMENT** Petitioner is the owner of vehicle bearing Registration No. KL-14-N-8129 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.P1 and P2 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** **= [2010 (3) KHC 333 2010(3)KLT 413]** has laid down the manner in 2 W.P.(C)No.28954/2013 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 mentioned Act confiscating the vehicle shall be concluded within six weeks from the date of W.P.(C)No.28954/2013 3 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 matter shall be finally disposed of within 'six weeks' from the date of 4 W.P.(C)No.28954/2013 receipt of a copy of the judgment. It is also made clear that the proceedings as above shall be finalised after by obtaining the lab 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), if the commodity tested is confirmed as 'river sand'. 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.28954/2013 5 W.P.(C)No.28954/2013 6 ## **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON** **JUDGE** sv. W.P.(C)No.28954/2013 7 **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE** sv. W.P.(C)No.28954/2013 8 **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE** W.P.(C)No.28954/2013 9 sv.