Santosh D'Souza v. District Collector, Civil Station, Vidyanagar, Kasaragod

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON** ## **MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2013/11TH CHAITHRA 1935** ## **WP(C).No. 8290 of 2013 (I)** **---------------------------** **PETITIONER(S) :** **SANTHOSH D'SOUZA, AGED 33 YEARS S/O.INAS D'SOUZA, RESIDING AT GOPAL THATTA HOUSE PAVOOR P.O, MANGALORE TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE** **RESPONDENT(S) :** **THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL STATION, VIDYANAGAR, KASARAGOD PIN 671 123.** **BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. VINCENT K.C.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-04-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **BP** **WP(C).No. 8290 of 2013 (I) ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS -------------------------------------** **EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT IN CONFISCATION PROCEEDINGS.** **EXHIBIT P1(A).TRUE COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT WHERE BY EXHIBIT P1 WAS RECEIVED BY THE OFFICE OF RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF PERMIT ISSUED BY THE MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA.** **EXHIBIT P3. COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 2/2013 OF MANJESWARAM POLICE STATION.** **EXHIBIT P4. COPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHAZAR IN CRIME NO. 2/2013 OF MANJESWARA POLICE STATION.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL.** **---------------------------------------** ## **//TRUE COPY//** ## **P.A. TO JUDGE** ## **BP** ## **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **W.P.(c) No. 8290 OF 2013** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1[st] day of April, 2013 ## **JUDGMENT** Petitioner is the owner of the lorry bearing registration No.KA 21-A-49 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 respondent to release the vehicle, pointing out that the sand that was being transported was on the basis of a valid pass issued from the State of Karnataka, but till this date no action has been taken by the respondent and hence the writ petition. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who submits that the genuineness of the pass itself is doubted, as there is a ban to transport sand outside the State of Karnataka. 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 W.P.(C)No.8290/2013 2 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 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 W.P.(C)No.8290/2013 3 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 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** W.P.(C)No.8290/2013 4 **Kerala** ( 2012 (2) KLT 547). It is made clear that all the contentions raised by the petitioner in the writ petition are left open and the genuineness/validity of the pass shall be ascertained by the first respondent. 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.8290/2013 5 **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE** sv. W.P.(C)No.8290/2013 6 W.P.(C)No.8290/2013 7