High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2013-10-07Writ Petition disposed of with directions as st...

Sharafudheen M.V. v. Sub Divisional Magistrate/Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of RDO, Thirur; Sub Inspector of Police, Thirur Police Station; Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, Joint Regional Transport Office, Tirur

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 24459 of 2013 (F)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. R. Ramachandra Menon
Judgment Date: 2013-10-07
Court Decision / Holding: The Writ Petition is disposed of. The first respondent is directed to consider the claim for interim custody within two weeks and to pass final orders on adjudication within six weeks from the date of seizure, after obtaining a laboratory analysis of the sand. If the petitioner is found to have transported river sand in contravention, further proceedings for prosecution shall be pursued in accordance with the law declared by this Court in Sujith v. State of Kerala. The petitioner shall furnish a copy of this judgment along with the writ petition before the first respondent for further steps.
Final Disposition: Writ Petition disposed of with directions as stated above.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sharafudheen M.V.

Respondents

Sub Divisional Magistrate/Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of RDO, Thirur, Malappuram District
Sub Inspector of Police, Thirur Police Station, Thirur, Malappuram District
Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, Joint Regional Transport Office, Tirur, Malappuram District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Shoby K. Francis
• Aji Shoby
• K.P. Shameena

Counsels for Respondents

• K.T. Lilly

Case Synopsis & Summary

Sharafudheen M.V., owner of vehicle KL-07 F 7146, challenges the detention of his vehicle by authorities under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act and its Rules, alleging the vehicle was carrying ordinary sand at the time of interception and that interim custody has been unduly delayed. The writ petition invokes the principles laid down by a Full Bench in Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala, which outlines interim custody modalities under the Act, including depositing 30% of the vehicle’s value and providing security, with final adjudication to be completed within a specified period. The judgment directs the statutory authorities to deal with the matter under the Act and in conformity with the Shan C.T. framework, while also acknowledging that if river sand transport is established, further prosecution would proceed under applicable law (Sujith v. State of Kerala). The court directs the first respondent to consider the petitioner's interim custody claim within two weeks and to pass final orders within six weeks from seizure, after lab analysis, and to notify the owner of the proceedings and provide an opportunity to objections within a specified time. The petitioner is to furnish a copy of this judgment along with the writ petition to the first respondent for further action.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Rules, 2002Motor Vehicles ActSection 23 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Petitioner contends that his vehicle was carrying ordinary sand and not river sand, and that detention without timely interim custody is unwarranted. He relies on the Full Bench ruling in Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala, seeking interim custody under the Act with conditions including deposit of 30% of the vehicle’s value, bank guarantee or immovable security for the balance, and a six-week timeframe for final adjudication. He seeks speedy disposal of the matter and compliance with the decision in Shan C.T. to avoid unnecessary delay; he asks for production of this judgment before the first respondent to enable proper steps.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents urge adherence to the statutory framework under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act and Rules. They acknowledge guidance from Shan C.T. but seek resolution of the matter under the Act’s provisions, with interim custody subject to the conditions laid down in the controlling authority (Shan C.T.), and final adjudication within the prescribed period, with a view to proceed under the law in Sujith v. State of Kerala if river sand violation is established.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala	2010 (3) KHC 333; 2010 (3) KLT 413	Positive	Cited as the controlling Full Bench authority shaping interim custody norms (deposit of 30% of vehicle value with security and six-week adjudication window) and directing timely action by authorities.
Sujith v. State of Kerala	2012 (2) KLT 547	Positive	Cited for the legal framework guiding subsequent prosecutions if river sand transport is proven at final adjudication, as endorsed by a Division Bench.

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 Sharafudheen M.V. v. Sub Divisional Magistrate/Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of RDO, Thirur; Sub Inspector of Police, Thirur Police Station; Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, Joint Regional Transport Office, Tirur 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 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/15TH ASWINA, 1935** ## **WP(C).No. 24459 of 2013 (F)** **----------------------------** ## **PETITIONER :** **--------------------** **SHARAFUDHEEN M.V., S/O. MOHAMMED, 36 YEARS, MELEDATH VALAPPILL HOUSE, KARIPPOLE P.O., ATHAVANADU VILLAGE MALAPPURAM DISTRICT (REGISTERED OWNER OF KL 07-F/7146)** **BY ADVS.SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS SRI.AJI SHOBY SMT.K.P.SHAMEENA** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** **----------------------------** **1. THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE/REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF RDO, THIRUR, P.O THIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PINCODE - 676101** **2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUR POLICE STATION, THIRUR P.O MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676101** **3. ASSISTANT MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTOR, JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, TIRUR MALAPPURAM DISTIRCT - 676101** **R1 TO R3 SR.GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.T. LILLY** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **Mn** **...2/-** **WP(C).No. 24459 of 2013 (F)** **----------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :** **-------------------------------------** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 20-09-2013** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL** **---------------------------------------------------------** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **Mn** ## **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **W.P.(c) No.24459 OF 2013** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7[th] day of October, 2013 ## **JUDGMENT** Petitioner is the owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No. KL-07 F 7146 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. The case of the petitioner is that, because of the delay and lapses on the part of the respondents, even interim custody of the vehicle seized on 20.09.2013 is still to be obtained. 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 the request for interim custody should be dealt with. Therefore, W.P.(C)No.24459/2013 2 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 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 W.P.(C)No.24459/2013 3 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 the claim for interim custody within two weeks. Final orders on adjudication shall be passed, at the earliest, at any rate, 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 for W.P.(C)No.24459/2013 4 prosecution 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). The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the first respondent for further steps. The Writ Petition is disposed of. **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE** sv. W.P.(C)No.24459/2013 5 **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE** sv. W.P.(C)No.24459/2013 6 W.P.(C)No.24459/2013 7