Rameshan v. Revenue Division Officer, Tirur, Malappuram District and Sub Inspector of Police, Tanur, Malappuram

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON** **THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/18TH ASWINA, 1935** ## **WP(C).No. 24888 of 2013 (I)** **----------------------------** **PETITIONER(S):** **--------------------------** **RAMESHAN, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.RAMAN, RESIDING AT VALAPPURATH HOUSE, TANUR P.O., PARIYAPURAM, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN SRI.P.G.SURESH** **SRI.G.SUDHEER (THURAVOOR) SMT.K.VIDHYAMANUVILSAN SRI.RAJAN VISHNURAJ SRI.V.HARISH** **RESPONDENT(S):** **----------------------------** **1. THE REVENUE DIVISION OFFICER, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 101.** **2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TANUR, MALAPPURAM-676 302.** **R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.T. LILLY** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **Kss** **WP(C).No. 24888 of 2013 (I)** **----------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:** **---------------------------------------** - **P1: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REGISTRATION PARTICULARS OF THE VEHICLE VIDE NO.KL 10-C-2291.** - **P2: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHAZAR DATED 08.09.2013 PREPARED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TANUR, SEIZURE OF THE VEHICLE BEARING REGN NO.KL 10-C-2291.** - **P3: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 09.09.2013, PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:** **----------------------------------------N I L** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A.TO JUDGE** **Kss** ## **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **W.P.(c) No.24888 OF 2013** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10[th] day of October, 2013 ## **JUDGMENT** Petitioner is the owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No. KL 10-C-2291 and the said vehicle has been detained by the first 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. It is stated that, though the petitioner filed Ext.P3 representation before the first respondent to release the vehicle, but no action has been taken till this date. According to the petitioner, the vehicle was carrying 'port sand' at the time of interception. It is submitted that the first respondent is proceeding with adjudication proceedings on the assumption that the seized article is river sand 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** 2 W.P.(C)No.24888/2013 **= [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.24888/2013 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 first respondent is directed to consider Ext.P3 representation preferred by the petitioner 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 4 W.P.(C)No.24888/2013 be finally disposed of within 'six weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, after obtaining the analysis report of sand tested in a competent laboratory. It is 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, 2001, further proceedings shall be pursued in accordance with the law declared by Division Bench of this Court in **Sujith v. State of Kerala** ( 2012 (2) KLT 547). ## **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE** sv. W.P.(C)No.24888/2013 5 W.P.(C)No.24888/2013 6