Vijeesh V. v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Thrissur District & The Sub Inspector of Police, Vadakke Kad, Malappuram

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. R. Ramachandra Menon
Judgment Date: 2013-11-19
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition disposed of. Directs the first respondent to consider the petitioner’s request for interim custody in accordance with the Full Bench decision in Shan C. T. v. State of Kerala, within one week, and to conclude the matter within six weeks. Also allows steps under Sujith v. State of Kerala if an offence is made out.
Final Disposition: Disposed of

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Vijeesh V., aged 29 years, s/o Mohanan

Respondents

Revenue Divisional Officer, Thrissur District 680 001
Sub Inspector of Police, Vadakke Kad, Malappuram 676 505

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• C. V. Manuvilasan

Counsels for Respondents

• Senior Government Pleader, Sri Joseph George

Case Synopsis & Summary

Vijeesh V, the registered owner of vehicle KL-01-T-445, challenges its detention under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Rules, 2002 for alleged transport of river sand. The petitioner approached the first respondent for release, but no action was taken, prompting the writ petition. The court notes that interim custody of seized vehicles has to be governed by established jurisprudence, citing a Full Bench decision in Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala (2010 (3) KHC 333; 2010 (3) KLT 413), which elaborates safeguards for interim custody. The judgment reiterates the positions: interim custody can be granted on deposit of 30% of the vehicle’s value as determined by the appropriate authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, along with a bank guarantee or immovable security for the balance, with those sums following the final outcome of confiscation proceedings. It further directs that confiscation under Section 23 of the relevant Act should be concluded within six weeks from seizure, with notice to the owner within three days and objections within a week. In light of these directions, the court orders the first respondent to consider the petitioner’s request for interim custody in accordance with the Shan C.T. framework within one week, and to dispose of the matter within six weeks, noting that prosecution steps under Sujith v. State of Kerala may be taken if an offence is made out.

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 (valuation by appropriate authority)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Interim custody of vehicle can be granted on deposit of 30% of the value plus security for the balance, pending final disposal (Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala)
Six-week time frame for disposal of confiscation proceedings under Section 23, with timely notice and opportunity to object (as per Shan C.T.)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Petitioner seeks interim custody and release of the vehicle detained for alleged violation of river sand rules; contends there has been undue delay in action by the first respondent, warranting judicial intervention.

Contentions of Respondents

Not explicitly stated in the judgment; the authorities are urged to apply the statutory framework for interim custody and potential confiscation proceedings.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala and others	2010 (3) KHC 333	Positive	Full Bench laid down interim custody procedure cited by the court.
Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala and others	2010 (3) KLT 413	Positive	Alternative citation of the same ruling referenced.
Sujith v. State of Kerala	2012 (2) KLT 547	Positive	Cited for permissible prosecutorial steps if an offence is made out.

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** ## **TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/28TH KARTHIKA, 1935** ## **WP(C).No. 28345 of 2013 (P)** **----------------------------** **PETITIONER:** **-------------------** **VIJEESH.V, AGED 29 YEARS S/O.MOHANAN, RESIDING AT MOOSARIPPARAMBIL HOUSE EASWARAMANGALAM, ATHALOOR, PONNANI MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN** **RESPONDENT(S):** **----------------------------** **1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 001.** **2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADAKKEKAD, MALAPPURAM - 676 505.** **BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. JOSEPH GEORGE** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No. 28345 of 2013 (P)** **----------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **EXT.P1: A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REGISTRATION PARTICULARS OF THE VEHICLE VIDE NO.KL -01-T-445.** **EXT.P2: A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHAZAR DATED 06/11/2013 PREPARED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADAKKEKAD REGARDING SEIZURE OF THE VEHICLE BEARING REGN NO.KL -01-T-445.** **EXT.P3: A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 07/11/2013 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** ## **RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **SKV** ## **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **W.P.(c) No. 28345 OF 2013** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19[th] day of November, 2013 ## **JUDGMENT** Petitioner is the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-01-T-445 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.28345/2013 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.28345/2013 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. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the first respondent is directed to consider the request of the petitioner for interim custody of the vehicle concerned, if any, in accordance with the law declared by the Full Bench of this Court in **Shan C.T. v. 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 matter shall be finally disposed of within 'six weeks' thereafter. It is also open for the concerned respondent to take appropriate steps in connection with the prosecution proceedings, as W.P.(C)No.28345/2013 4 made clear by the Division Bench of this Court in **Sujith v. State of Kerala** ( 2012 (2) KLT 547), if any offence is made out. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the Writ Petition before the first respondent for further steps. Writ petition is disposed of. sv **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE** W.P.(C)No.28345/2013 5 W.P.(C)No.28345/2013 6