High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2013-10-10Writ petition disposed of, with directions as t...

Saidalavi v. Revenue Division Officer, Perundhalmanna, Malappuram District; Deputy Collector, Malappuram

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 24923 of 2013 (M)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Judgment Date: 2013-10-10
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition is disposed of. The first respondent is directed to consider Ext.P3 and pass appropriate order in accordance with law, granting interim custody forthwith on satisfying the requirements, and may take necessary steps in connection with prosecution proceedings as clarified by Shan C.T. and Sujith v. State of Kerala.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of, with directions as to interim custody of the seized vehicle.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Saidalavi, s/o Muhammed

Respondents

The Revenue Division Officer, Perundhalmanna, Malappuram District-676 505
The Deputy Collector, Malappuram-676 505

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri C.V. Manvilsan
• Sri P.G. Suresh
• Sri G. Sudheer (Thuravoor)
• Smt.K.Vidya
• Sri Rajan Vishnura j
• Sri V. Harish

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri Joseph George

Case Synopsis & Summary

Petitioner Saidalavi, owner of vehicle KL 11-P-5893, challenges detainment under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Rules, 2002 for alleged sand transportation in violation of the Act. He contends that Ext.P3 requesting interim custody has not been acted upon by the first respondent, and seeks relief by way of this writ petition. The court relies on Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala, a Full Bench decision, which lays down the manner in which interim custody applications should be dealt with under the Act. It directs that the statutory authority consider Ext.P3 and act in light of the Act and the Full Bench directives. The judgment records the operative portion of Shan C.T., which provides that interim custody may be granted if the owner deposits 30% of the vehicle’s value in cash, plus a bank guarantee or immovable property security for the balance, with the amount and security to follow the final outcome of confiscation. It further directs that proceedings under Section 23 should be concluded within six weeks from seizure, failing which interim custody may be restored on the same terms; a notice to the owner within three days of seizure and a one-week window to file objections are required. The court also cites Sujith v. State of Kerala to permit prosecution steps. Consequently, the first respondent is directed to decide Ext.P3 and grant interim custody forthwith, as per law. The petition is 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, 2002The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Interim custody of seized vehicle can be granted on deposit of 30% of the value and security for the balance as laid down by Shan C.T.
Proceedings under Section 23 of the Act should be concluded within six weeks from seizure, with interim custody to be considered if not concluded within that period.
Owner must be given notice within three days of seizure and may file objections within a week, to avoid undue delay in proceedings.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner argues detainment lacks justification and seeks release of the vehicle on interim custody in line with the Shan C.T. principles. He relies on Ext.P3 to obtain release and contends for prompt consideration by the first respondent.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents rely on the statutory framework and the Shan C.T. guidelines for interim custody, urging that the authorities decide Ext.P3 under the Act and proceed in accordance with law, while keeping in view the possibility of taking prosecution steps under the Act.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala	2010 (3) KHC 333; 2010(3)KLT 413	Positive	Full Bench laid down the procedural framework for interim custody of vehicles; the present case follows those guidelines.
Sujith v. State of Kerala	2012 (2) KLT 547	Positive	Division Bench clarifies prosecution-related steps referenced by the court.

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 Saidalavi v. Revenue Division Officer, Perundhalmanna, Malappuram District; Deputy Collector, Malappuram 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** **THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/18TH ASWINA, 1935** ## **WP(C).No. 24923 of 2013 (M)** **----------------------------** **PETITIONER(S):** **--------------------------** **SAIDALAVI, S/O.MUHAMMED, RESIDING AT KANNAMKUZHIYIL HOUSE, MATTATHUR P.O., OTHUKKUNGAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN SRI.P.G.SURESH** **SRI.G.SUDHEER (THURAVOOR) SMT.K.VIDYA SRI.RAJAN VISHNURAJ SRI.V.HARISH** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** **----------------------------** ## **1. THE REVENUE DIVISION OFFICER, PERUNDHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 505.** **2. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM-676 505.** **R1 & R2 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE** **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. 24923 of 2013 (M)** **------------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:** **----------------------------------------** **EXHIBIT-P1:A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REGISTRATION PARTICULARS OF THE VEHICLE VIDE NO.KL 11-P-5893.** **EXHIBIT-P2:A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHAZAR DATED 10.09.2013 PREPARED BY DEPUTY COLLECTOR REGARDING SEIZURE OF THE VEHICLE BEARING REG.NO.KL-11-P-5893.** **EXHIBIT-P3: A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12.09.2013, 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. 24923 OF 2013** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10[th] day of October, 2013 ## **JUDGMENT** Petitioner is the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.KL 11 - P 5893 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 by filing Ext.P3 representation 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.24923/2013 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.24923/2013 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 Ext.P3 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.24923/2013 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.24923/2013 5 W.P.(C)No.24923/2013 6