High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2013-12-17Writ petition disposed of

Mohammed Shafi v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Thirur, Malappuram District and The Sub Inspector of Police, Kottakal

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 31184 of 2013

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Judgment Date: 2013-12-17
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition disposed of. The first respondent is directed to consider the applicant's request for release of the vehicle and pass appropriate order in accordance with law, granting interim custody forthwith on satisfying the requirements. It follows the Shan C.T. framework (deposit 30% of value in cash with security for balance; bank guarantee or immovable property) and directs the six-week timeline for S.23 proceedings, with a three-day notice to the owner and a one-week objection period. If the six-week period cannot be concluded, interim custody may still be granted on the same terms. The respondent may take steps in connection with prosecution as clarified in Sujith v. State of Kerala.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Mohammed Shafi

Respondents

Revenue Divisional Officer, Thirur, Malappuram District
Sub Inspector of Police, Kottakal

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri.C.V.MANUVILSAN

Counsels for Respondents

• Sr Government Pleader SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE

Case Synopsis & Summary

Petitioner Mohammed Shafi, owner of vehicle KL-08-B-9142, challenges detention under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Rules, 2002, alleging contravention in the absence of action by the first respondent to release the vehicle. He had approached the first respondent for release, but no action was taken, and he seeks interim custody pending disposal of the confiscation proceedings. The court relies on the Full Bench decision in Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala, which lays down the manner in which interim custody applications should be dealt with under the Act, and directs that the application be considered in light of those directions. Paragraphs 12 and 13 of Shan C.T. are quoted: interim custody may be granted on condition that the owner deposits 30% of the vehicle's value in cash and provides security for the balance; the amount and security would follow the final outcome of the confiscation. The decision also requires the confiscation proceedings under Section 23 to be concluded within six weeks from seizure, with notice to the owner and a one-week window to file objections; if six weeks cannot be met, interim custody may still be granted on the same terms. The court directs the first respondent to decide the application accordingly and pass an order granting interim custody forthwith, with reference to Sujith v. State of Kerala for prosecution steps. Writ petition 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

Interim custody of seized vehicle can be granted on conditions including deposit of 30% of value in cash and security for balance (as laid down by Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala)
Provisions directing that confiscation proceedings under S.23 should be concluded within six weeks from seizure, with notice and opportunity to file objections, failing which interim custody may be granted on the earlier terms

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Petitioner contends that his vehicle KL-08-B-9142 was detained under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Rules, 2002. He asserts ownership and has sought release of the vehicle on interim custody. He had approached the 1st respondent for release, but no action was taken. Guided by the Full Bench decision in Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala, the petitioner seeks interim custody under the prescribed scheme, pending disposal of the confiscation proceedings, with appropriate safeguards.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents rely on statutory provisions under the relevant Act and rules and urge that the interim custody application be decided strictly in accordance with the Shan C.T. framework; the government pleader invokes the need to follow due process under the Act and to dispose of proceedings under S.23 within reasonable time, with appropriate notices and opportunities for objections.

Cited Precedents (2)

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 for the interim custody framework and the conditions (deposit of 30% of vehicle value and security for balance; six-week deadline; notice and objections). The judgment explicitly quotes paragraphs 12–13 from this decision and directs compliance.
Sujith v. State of Kerala	2012 (2) KLT 547	Positive	Cited to confirm that authorities may take appropriate steps in connection with prosecution proceedings, in line with the Division Bench guidance.

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 Shafi v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Thirur, Malappuram District and The Sub Inspector of Police, Kottakal 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 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2013/26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935** ## **WP(C).No. 31184 of 2013 (W)** **----------------------------** **PETITIONER :** **--------------------------** **MOHAMMED SHAFI, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. ABDULLA, RESIDING AT PARIYADATH HOUSE, MOOLAPARAMB,MATTATHUR P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN** **RESPONDENT(S):** **----------------------------** **1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT- 676 101** **2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTAKAL, MALAPPURAM.** **BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-12-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** ## **WP(C).No. 31184 of 2013 (W) -----------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **-------------------------------------** **EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REGISTRATION PARTICUALRS OF THE VEHICLE VIDE NO. KL 08- B-9142** **EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SEIZURE MAAZAR DATED 05-11-2013 PREPARED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTAKAL REGARDING SEIZURE OF THE VEHICLE BEARING REGN NO. KL 08- B- 9142** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 03-12-2013 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST REPSONDENT** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL** ## **/TRUE COPY/** ## **P.A.TO.JUDGE** **sts** ## **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **W.P.(c) No.31184 OF 2013** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17[th] day of December, 2013 ## **JUDGMENT** Petitioner is the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.KL- 08-B-9142 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 1[st] respondent to release the vehicle, but till this date no action has been taken by the 1[st] 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 W.P.(C)No.31184/2013 2 pending, shall 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 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. W.P.(C)No.31184/2013 3 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. In the said circumstance, the first 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. It is also open 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 will produce a copy of this judgment along with a 4 W.P.(C)No.31184/2013 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.31184/2013 5 **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE** sv. W.P.(C)No.31184/2013 6