Muhammed Shafi v. Sub Divisional Magistrate / R.D.O., Kozhikode and Sub Inspector of Police, Feroke Police Station, Kozhikode District

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON** **WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013/23RD SRAVANA, 1935** ## **WP(C).No. 18700 of 2013 (J)** **----------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** **--------------------------** **MUHAMMED SHAFI, S/O HASSAN, AGED 29 YEARS, THANNICHALIL HOUSE, PERUMUGHAM, FEROKE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR.** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** **--------------------------** **1. THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE / R.D.O., KOZHIKODE- 673 001.** **2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, FEROKE POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT- 673 631.** **BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER MR.K.C. VINCENT.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-08-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **rs.** **WP(C).No. 18700 of 2013 (J) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:NIL. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE.** **rs.** ## **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **W.P.(c) No. 18700 OF 2013** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14[th] day of August, 2013 ## **JUDGMENT** Petitioner is the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-10AC/8303 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, who submits that the second respondent has already forwarded the report to the District Collector and that by virtue of the change in the statutory position conferring the power, jurisdiction and authority upon the the first respondent, the records will be transmitted by the District Collector to the first respondent. 2 W.P.(C)No.18700/2013 ## 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 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 W.P.(C)No.18700/2013 3 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 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, for granting interim custody of the vehicle forthwith, on satisfying the requirements. It is also open for the concerned respondent to take W.P.(C)No.18700/2013 4 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 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.18700/2013 5 W.P.(C)No.18700/2013 6