High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2013-02-18Writ petition disposed of.

Sanju Mon P.S. v. Sub Inspector of Police, Paravur Police Station, Ernakulam; District Collector, Ernakulam

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 4636 of 2013 (D)

Neutral Citation:/

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. R. Ramachandra Menon
Judgment Date: 2013-02-18
Court Decision / Holding: 1st respondent is directed to consider the application for release of the vehicle and pass appropriate order in accordance with law, granting interim custody of the vehicle forthwith, on satisfying the requirements.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sanju Mon P.S.

Respondents

The Sub Inspector of Police, Paravur Police Station, Ernakulam
The District Collector, Ernakulam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. G. Santosh Kumar

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. George Mecheril

Case Synopsis & Summary

Petitioner Sanju Mon P.S., owner of a tipper lorry registered KL-41/D-919, challenges the detention of his vehicle under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Rules, 2002, on the allegation that the vehicle was used to transport river sand in contravention of the Rules. He states that he approached the first respondent for release but no action has been taken; hence he seeks interim custody pending confiscation proceedings. The court recalls the Full Bench decision in Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala, which set out the manner in which such interim custody applications should be dealt with, including conditions for interim release and the time frame for concluding proceedings. The judgment quotes paragraphs 12 and 13 of that decision, which provide: deposit of 30% of the vehicle’s value by the owner; security for the balance (bank guarantee or immovable property); and a six-week target to conclude confiscation proceedings under Section 23, with a three-day notice to the owner and a one-week window for objections. If six weeks cannot be met, interim custody may still be ordered on those terms. Accordingly, the court directs the first respondent to consider the petitioner’s request for release of the vehicle and pass an appropriate order granting interim custody forthwith, as per law, and disposes of the writ petition.

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, 1988

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Petitioner’s counsel submits that the vehicle has been detained only on the basis of alleged violation of the Sand Rules and that there is no justification to retain custody indefinitely. He urges the court to apply the Shan C.T. framework, allowing interim custody on deposit of 30% of the value and furnishing security for the balance, with the amount and security to be adjusted in the final order. He further argues that the six-week deadline should apply and, if not feasible, interim custody should be granted with proper notice and an opportunity to object within a week. The petitioner asks for urgent release to avoid undue hardship and to enable him to operate his business, subject to lawful restrictions and conditions.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents contend that the vehicle seizure under the Kerala River Sand Rules is lawful and that interim custody can be granted only in accordance with the statutory framework. They submit that Shan C.T. provides a framework but requires adherence to the Act and due process; the court should direct the statutory authority to decide the application under the Rules and not direct immediate release unless conditions are satisfied. They also assert that the six-week timeline for confiscation proceedings is designed for expeditious disposal, and that the underlying purpose is to enforce environmental protection and regulation of sand removal.

Cited Precedents (1)

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 interim custody guidelines which the court applies in this case.

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 Sanju Mon P.S. v. Sub Inspector of Police, Paravur Police Station, Ernakulam; District Collector, Ernakulam 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** **MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/29TH MAGHA 1934** ## **WP(C).No. 4636 of 2013 (D)** **--------------------------** **PETITIONER:** **--------------------** **SANJU MON P.S., AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.SAIDU MUHAMMED, PADAMATTATHU HOUSE, PALAPRASSERY,CHENGAMANADU.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.G.SANTHOSH KUMAR** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:** **----------------------------------------------------** **1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARAVUR POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM-PIN-682 048** **2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 038** **R1 & R2 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** **WP(C)NO.4636/2013** **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS** **EXT.P1:TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE CERTIFICATE DATED 27/7/2010 EXT.P2:THE PERMIT ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER DATED 6/8/2010 EXT.P3:TRUE COPY OF THE DEALER HAVING VALID LICENSE UP TO 31/3/2013 FROM CHENGAMANADU TO PALLIPPURAM. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL** ## **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A.TO.JUDGE** **sts** ## **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **W.P.(c) No. 4636 OF 2013** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18[th] day of February, 2013 ## **JUDGMENT** Petitioner is the owner of the tipper lorry bearing registration NoKL-41/D-919 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.4636/2013 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. But if for any reason the authorities under the W.P.(C)No.4636/2013 3 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 1[st] respondent is directed to consider the application of the petitioner for release of the vehicle and pass appropriate order in accordance with law, as aforesaid, granting interim custody of the vehicle forthwith, on satisfying the requirements. 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. ## **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE** sv W.P.(C)No.4636/2013 4 sv. W.P.(C)No.4636/2013 5 W.P.(C)No.4636/2013 6