High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2013-11-11Writ Petition disposed of with directions to de...

Shajan K.N. v. Deputy Range Forest Officer, Pooyamkutty Forest Station, Ernakulam District; Revenue Divisional Officer, Moovattupuzha, Ernakulam District; Director, Mining and Geology, Office of the Mining and Geology, Kesavadasapuram, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 27604 of 2013 (A)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. R. Ramachandra Menon
Judgment Date: 2013-11-11
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is disposed of. The second respondent is directed to consider the request for interim custody in accordance with the Full Bench decision in Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala (2010 (3) KHC 333) within one week from receipt of a copy of this judgment, and to conclude the proceedings within six weeks as far as possible. The proceedings should include the analysis report of the sand, and the competent authority should take appropriate steps in connection with prosecution proceedings as clarified by Sujith v. State of Kerala (2012 (2) KLT 547). The petitioner must furnish a copy of this judgment along with the writ petition to the second respondent for further steps.
Final Disposition: Writ Petition disposed of with directions to decide interim custody per Shan C.T. within one week and to conclude proceedings within six weeks; require sand analysis and proceed with prosecution if warranted; copy of judgment to be provided to the second respondent.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Shajan K.N.

Respondents

Deputy Range Forest Officer, Pooyamkutty Forest Station, Ernakulam District-686691
Revenue Divisional Officer, Moovattupuzha, Ernakulam District-686661
Director, Mining and Geology, Office of the Mining and Geology, Kesavadasapuram, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram-695001

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri P. M. Ziraj

Counsels for Respondents

• SMT. K. T. Lilly

Case Synopsis & Summary

Shajan K.N., owner of a lorry registered KL-13-S-3916, challenges detention of his vehicle by the Deputy Range Forest Officer under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Rules, 2002. He contends that the vehicle was carrying ordinary sand and not river sand, and has submitted Exts. P3 and P4 representations seeking sample analysis by the Mining and Geology Department and adjudication. The second respondent has not taken action, prompting the writ petition. The court references a Full Bench decision in Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala, which lays down the proper process for interim custody of vehicles, including conditions such as depositing 30% of the vehicle’s value, furnishing security for the balance, and limiting proceedings under S.23 to six weeks where possible. The judgment directs the statutory authorities to handle the matter per the Full Bench ruling, ensure an analysis report of the sand, and proceed with prosecution steps as clarified by Sujith v. State of Kerala. The writ petition is disposed of, with directions to the second respondent to consider interim custody expeditiously and finalise the proceedings within six weeks, after notifying the owner and obtaining necessary reports.

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

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that his vehicle was detained under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Rules, 2002 for transporting sand that he asserts is ordinary sand, not river sand. He has filed Exts. P3 and P4 requesting sample analysis and adjudication by the Mining and Geology Department, and seeks interim custody of the vehicle pending final proceedings. Relying on the Full Bench decision in Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala, he seeks interim custody under the conditional framework (deposit of 30% of vehicle value, bank guarantee or security, with final outcome to follow the confiscation proceedings) and a time-bound disposal; he urges expeditious action and inclusion of analysis results before final orders.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that the vehicle was detained for violation of the sand rules and river bank protections and that interim custody should not be granted without adhering to statutory proceedings. They referenced the need to complete adjudication under the Act and to ensure proper analysis and prosecution where warranted. The Government Pleader presented that the matter must be resolved in line with statutory safeguards and the principle of timely adjudication, with due regard to public-interest concerns and the enforcement of the sand rules.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala and others	2010 (3) KHC 333; 2010 (3) KLT 413	Positive	Full Bench laid down interim custody guidelines and time-bound, security-based conditions; the present court applies these principles to direct interim custody and expedited proceedings.
Sujith v. State of Kerala	2012 (2) KLT 547	Positive	Division Bench directive cited for ensuring prosecution steps and timely finalization of the matter; used to justify procedural steps alongside the Shan C.T. guidelines.

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 Shajan K.N. v. Deputy Range Forest Officer, Pooyamkutty Forest Station, Ernakulam District; Revenue Divisional Officer, Moovattupuzha, Ernakulam District; Director, Mining and Geology, Office of the Mining and Geology, Kesavadasapuram, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram 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 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/20TH KARTHIKA, 1935** ## **WP(C).No. 27604 of 2013 (A)** **----------------------------** **PETITIONER(S):** **-------------** **SHAJAN.K.N., AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN, KOMPARAYIL HOUSE, NJAYAPPILLY.P.O., NJAYAPPILLY DESOM, KUTTAMPUZHA VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM (OWNER OF THE LORRY BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL-13-S-3916).** **BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ.** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** **---------------** **1. DEPUTY RANGE FOREST OFFICER, POOYAMKUTTY FOREST STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686 691.** **2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MOOVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. PIN-686 661.** **3. THE DIRECTOR, MINING AND GEOLOGY, OFFICE OF THE MINING AND GEOLOGY, KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** **BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.T.LILLY.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **rvs/** _**WP(C).No. 27604 of 2013 (A)**_ ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :** **------------------------** **EXT. P1TRUE COPY OF THE MAHASAR DATED 5.11.2013 PREPARED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.** **EXT. P2TRUE COPY OF THE CASH MEMORANDUM DATED 4.11.2013 FOR TRANSPORTATION OF ORDINARY SAND.** **EXT. P3TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 6.11.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT.** **EXT. P4TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 6.11.2013.** **EXT. P5TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 11.10.2013 IN WPC NO.25045 OF 2013.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:** **-----------------------** ## **NIL.** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A.TO JUDGE** **rvs/** ## **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **W.P.(c) No.27604 OF 2013** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11[th] day of November, 2013 ## **JUDGMENT** Petitioner is the owner of vehicle bearing Registration No. KL13-S-3916 and the said vehicle has been detained by the second 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. According to the petitioner, the vehicle was carrying ordinary sand at the time of interception and he has filed Exts.P3 and P4 representations requesting to send the sample to the Mining and Geology Department for analysis and to complete the adjudication proceedings. But till this date no action has been taken by the second 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** W.P.(C)No.27604/2013 2 **= [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.27604/2013 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 second respondent is directed to consider the request of the petitioner for interim custody, 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 4 W.P.(C)No.27604/2013 matter shall be finally disposed of within 'six weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. It is also made clear that the proceedings as above shall be finalised also by obtaining the analysis report of the sand. It is 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 shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the second respondent for further steps. The Writ Petition is disposed of. ## **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE** sv. W.P.(C)No.27604/2013 5 W.P.(C)No.27604/2013 6 ## **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON** **JUDGE** sv. W.P.(C)No.27604/2013 7 **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE** sv. W.P.(C)No.27604/2013 8