High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2013-10-04Disposed of the writ petition with directions f...

Mohammed Sabir v. State of Kerala & Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 18887 of 2013 (I)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. R. Ramachandra Menon
Judgment Date: 2013-10-04
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition disposed of. Directs the Additional Fourth Respondent to enquire into the genuineness of the pass; petitioner may file representations within ten days; inquiry to be conducted on merits with hearing and decided within six weeks. Interim custody of the vehicle may be granted on conditions similar to Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala (2010) 3 KHC 333, including deposit of 30% of the vehicle’s value and security for the balance, with the final outcome of confiscation to follow. If proven to transport river sand in contravention of the Kerala Protection of River Banks Act, prosecution shall be pursued in light of Sujith v. State of Kerala. The petition is disposed of.
Final Disposition: Disposed of the writ petition with directions for enquiry and interim custody provisions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Mohammed Sabir, S/O Moydeen Kutty

Respondents

State of Kerala, represented by Secretary, Department of Revenue, Thiruvananthapuram
District Collector, Kasaragod
Station House Officer, Vidyanager Police Station, Kasaragod District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Kodoth Sreedharan (Adv.)

Counsels for Respondents

• Senior Government Pleader S. Joseph George

Case Synopsis & Summary

Mohammed Sabir, owner of vehicle KL 14 J 4154, challenges detention of his vehicle for transporting river sand purchased from Karnataka on a valid pass. The State respondents contend the pass’s genuineness is doubtful and that the pass issued by Karnataka covers only ordinary sand, not river sand, and is valid only within Karnataka; moreover, no tax has been paid at Kerala check posts. They also rely on Karnataka Government Order G.O. No.C.250/MMN/2009 dated 28.01.2009, which bans cross-border transport of sand beyond Karnataka. The petitioner argues that the pass is genuine and that the matter should be decided on merits after proper verification. After hearing both sides, the court directs an enquiry by the Additional Fourth Respondent to determine the genuineness of the pass, with the petitioner permitted to file a representation within ten days. The enquiry must be conducted on merits, with opportunity for hearing, within six weeks. The court allows interim custody of the vehicle on conditions akin to those in Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala (2010) 3 KHC 333, including deposit of 30% of the vehicle’s value and security for the balance, to be guided by the appropriate authority under the Motor Vehicles Act. If final adjudication finds a violation, prosecution under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act will proceed as per Sujith v. State of Kerala’s guidance, with disposal of the petition.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act — S.23Motor Vehicles Act (reference to interim custody framework)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner asserts that he possessed a valid pass issued by the Karnataka authorities for transporting sand and that the vehicle detention is unwarranted. He contends the Karnataka pass is genuine and that the sand was bought under a bona fide arrangement; thus, a merits-based enquiry is necessary to confirm the pass’s genuineness. He seeks release or interim custody of the vehicle pending adjudication and requests to be heard on the matter.

Contentions of Respondents

The Government Pleader countered that the genuineness of the Karnataka pass is doubtful and that the pass pertains to ordinary sand, not river sand; the pass’s validity is restricted to Karnataka, not Kerala. No tax had been paid at Kerala check posts, and Karnataka’s orders ban cross-border transport beyond the State. Therefore, the detention is justified pending a merits-based evaluation and possible action under the relevant river-sand statute.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala	2010 (3) KHC 333	Positive	Used as the controlling precedent for interim custody with deposit and six-week adjudication framework.
Sujith v. State of Kerala	2012 (2) KLT 547	Mentioned Only	Referenced to indicate potential prosecution under the river-sand act; not applied as a binding directive in this decision.

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 Mohammed Sabir v. State of Kerala & Others 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 4TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/12TH ASWINA, 1935 WP(C).No. 18887 of 2013 (I) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ MOHAMMED SABIR, S/O.MOYDEEN KUTTY, R/AT UKKILAMBADI THEKKIL FERRY P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPT. OF REVENUE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD. 671 121. 3. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VIDYANAGER POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 671 121. SUPPLEMENTAL R4 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT/4/10/13 IN I.A.12840/13 SUPPL.R4: MOHAMMED SABIR, S/O.MOYDEEN KUTTY, R/AT MEDUVIL HOUSE, THEKKIL FERRY.P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 18887 of 2013 (I) ---------------------------- ## APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXT.P1: COPY OF THE GOODS CARRIAGE PERMIT DATED 04/06/2010 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE PERMIT DATED 03/07/2013 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF MINING & GEOLOGY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD DATED 18/3/2009. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.NO.9908/2013 BY THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 10/4/2013. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------- NIL //True copy// P.A.to Judge uj. ## **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **W.P.(c) No. 18887 OF 2013** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4[th] day of October, 2013 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner is the owner of the vehicle bearing No.KL 14 J 4154. The grievance of the petitioner is that the said vehicle has been detained by the respondents, while transporting river sand purchased from the Karnataka on the strength of valid pass, alleging that the petitioner was illegally transporting river sand in Kerala. 2. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the genuineness of the pass produced by the petitioner is doubted. It is also pointed out that the pass issued by the concerned authority in the State of Karnataka is only in respect of ' **ordinary sand** '; whereas the sand transported is admittedly **'river sand** '. It is also pointed out that the passes are valid only in the State of Karnataka, on the basis of which, no materials could be transported within the State of Kerala. The learned Government Pleader further W.P.(C)No.18887/2013 2 submits that, no tax has been paid in respect of the goods either in Karnataka or at any of the Check Posts in Kerala. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that, by virtue of the relevant orders issued by the Government of Karnataka (G.O No.C.250/MMN/2009 dated 28.01.2009 of Government of Karnataka) **t** here is a ban in transporting **.** even ordinary sand beyond the boundaries of the State of Karnataka 3. After hearing both the side, this Court finds it fit and proper to direct the the additional fourth respondent ( impleaded vide order dated 04/10/2013 in I.A.No.12993/2013) to enquire into the issue and adjudicate the matter on merits. Accordingly, the petitioner is set at liberty to file representation with all the relevant particulars before the additional fourth respondent within 'ten days' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, upon which necessary enquiry shall be conducted as to the genuineness of the pass and the matter shall be adjudicated on merits, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner at the earliest, at any rate, within 'six' weeks' from the date of receipt of the application, as aforesaid. It is open for the petitioner to seek for interim custody of the vehicle, upon which the same shall be W.P.(C)No.18887/2013 3 considered and appropriate orders shall be passed within 'two weeks', taking note of the observation made by the Full Bench in **2010 (3) KHC 333** ( _**Shan C.T. vs. State of Kerala**_ ). 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 within the period W.P.(C)No.18887/2013 4 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.” 6. It is further made clear that, on final adjudication, if it is proved that the petitioner was transporting 'river sand' in contravention of the provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, further steps by way of prosecution proceedings shall be taken in the light of the ruling rendered by a Division Bench of this Court vide the decision in _**Sujith**_ ## _**vs. State of Kerala**_ ( **2012 (2) KLT 547** ). The Writ Petition is disposed of. ## **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE** sv. W.P.(C)No.18887/2013 5 W.P.(C)No.18887/2013 6 **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE** sv. W.P.(C)No.18887/2013 7