High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2013-08-23Writ Petition disposed of.

Vinod.E v. Director of Mining and Geology Department, Kasaragod; Geologist, O/o Geologist, Department of Mining and Geology, Kasaragode; The Sub Inspector of Police, Neeleswaram Police Station, Kasaragod District; The District Collector, Kasaragode; The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kanhangad, Kasaragode District

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 20909 of 2013 (K)

Neutral Citation:/null

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
Judgment Date: 2013-08-23
Court Decision / Holding: The Writ Petition is disposed of. The competent authority is directed to consider the petitioner’s request for interim custody in light of the Shan C.T. guidelines, within one week from the receipt of this judgment, and to dispose of the confiscation issue within six weeks from the seizure, after obtaining the sand’s analysis in a competent laboratory. If the final adjudication shows river sand transported in contravention of the Act, further proceedings shall be pursued under the applicable laws; if not, opportunities for compounding may be provided as appropriate under the Mines and Minerals Act and Kerala Minor Mineral Rules. The petitioner shall furnish a copy of this judgment with the writ petition before the respondents for further action.
Final Disposition: Writ Petition disposed of.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sri V.V. Nandagopal Nambiar

Respondents

Director of Mining and Geology Department, Mining and Geology, Kasaragode
Geologist, O/o Geologist, Department of Mining and Geology, Kasaragode
Sub Inspector of Police, Neeleswaram Police Station, Kasaragod District
District Collector, Kasaragode
Revenue Divisional Officer, Kanhangad, Kasaragode District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri V.V. Nandagopal Nambiar
• Senior Government Pleader Sri Joseph George

Counsels for Respondents

• Senior Government Pleader Sri Joseph George

Case Synopsis & Summary

Vinod E., owner of the Tata LMV Goods Carrier KL-13-E-6249, challenges seizure of his vehicle on 17.08.2013 for alleged transportation of river sand under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. He contends the material transported was ordinary sand (poozhi manal) and that no sample has been sent for chemical examination, while the vehicle remains in interim custody due to delays by the third respondent. The petition relies on a principle laid down by a Full Bench in Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala (2010 (3) KHC 333; 2010 (3) KLT 413) which permits interim custody under defined conditions. The court directs the competent authority to consider the request for interim custody in light of those rules within one week and to conclude the confiscation proceedings within six weeks from seizure, following laboratory analysis. It also notes that if river sand is not proved, further proceedings under the Mines and Minerals Act and the Kerala Minor Mineral Rules may be pursued, with opportunities for compounding if warranted. The petitioner must furnish a copy of this judgment along with the writ petition before respondents for further action.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001S.23 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala and others (2010 (3) KHC 333); 2010 (3) KLT 413 — interim custody guidelines for seized vehicles (deposit of 30% of value in cash with security for balance; six-week timeline for proceedings)
Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala and others (2010 (3) KHC 333); 2010 (3) KLT 413 — doctrine applied in this petition for interim custody
Sujith v. State of Kerala (2012 (2) KLT 547) — compounding provision referenced for offences if proved not river sand under the relevant Acts

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that river sand was not transported and that the sand seized was ordinary sand. He points out that no sample has been sent for chemical examination despite requests, and that the vehicle remains in interim custody due to administrative delay. Relying on the Full Bench decision in Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala, he seeks interim custody under the established guidelines (deposit 30% of the vehicle’s value in cash with security for the balance, and bank guarantee or immovable security). He requests a directive that the competent authority consider interim custody within one week and dispose of the confiscation issue within six weeks, after laboratory analysis. He also seeks that, on final adjudication, if the sand is not river sand, consequences under other laws be considered with an opportunity for compounding if warranted. He asks that a copy of this judgment be produced before the respondents for further steps.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submit that the matter must proceed under the statutory framework of the 2001 Act and related provisions, and that interim custody should follow the Shan C.T. guidelines, including the deposit and security requirements and the six-week timeline for concluding confiscation proceedings. They emphasize compliance with procedural safeguards, timely action, and reliance on the analysis report. They assert that final adjudication must be conducted strictly under the law, and that any decisions shall be in accordance with the statutory regime and relevant case law, including potential compounding where applicable. They seek a measured, lawful resolution of the case with adherence to the statutory protocols and prompt action.

Cited Precedents (3)

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 decision laid down interim custody guidelines, which the court applies.
Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala and others	2010 (3) KLT 413	Positive	Parallel citation, same doctrine applied.
Sujith v. State of Kerala	2012 (2) KLT 547	Positive	Law declared by Division Bench regarding consequences if not river sand and potential compounding; followed as controlling guidance.

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 Vinod.E v. Director of Mining and Geology Department, Kasaragod; Geologist, O/o Geologist, Department of Mining and Geology, Kasaragode; The Sub Inspector of Police, Neeleswaram Police Station, Kasaragod District; The District Collector, Kasaragode; The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kanhangad, Kasaragode District 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** **FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST 2013/1ST BHADRA, 1935** **WP(C).No. 20909 of 2013 (K) ----------------------------** **PETITIONER :** - **----------** **VINOD.E, AGED 35 YEARS S/O. AMBU, ULLARA HOUSE, P.O. PETTIKUNDU KAYYUR CHEEMENI, KASARAGODE DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR** **RESPONDENTS :** **1. THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, KESAVBADASAPURAM PATTOM.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** **2. THE GEOLOGIST, O/O. GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY KASARGODE-671121.** **3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE NEELESWARAM POLICE STATION, KASARGODE DISTRICT.** **4. DISTRICT COLLECTOR** - **COLLECTORATE, KASARAGODE-671121.** **5. REVENEU DIVISIONAL OFFICER** - **R.D.O. OFFICE, KANHANGAD, KASARGODE DISTRICT.** **BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-08-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **BP** **WP(C).No. 20909 of 2013 (K)** ## **----------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** - **P1. TRUE COPAY OF THE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE BEARING REG. NO. KL-60-E-6249.** - **P2. TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DT. 17-8-2013 PREPARED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **P3. TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED NIL.** - **P4. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 6-3-2013 IN WPC 5525/2013.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **BP** ## **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **W.P.(c) No.20909 OF 2013** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23[rd] day of August, 2013 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner is the owner of the vehicle TATA LMV Goods Carrier bearing Registration No. KL-13-E-6249 and the said vehicle was seized by the third respondent on 17.8.2013 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 Act, 2001. According to the petitioner, the vehicle was carrying ordinary sand (poozhi manal) at the time of interception. Despite the petitioner's request to the 3[rd] respondent to send the sample of sand for chemical examination, till this date no action has been taken by the third respondent and hence the writ petition. The case of the petitioner is that, because of the delay from the part of the third respondent, the interim custody of the vehicle is WPC 20909/2013 2 still to be obtained. 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, all what is necessary in the Writ Petition is to direct the statutory authority to deal with the matter in the light of the provisions of the Rules referred to above and in the manner as directed by the Full Bench of this Court in the judgment referred to above. The 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 WPC 20909/2013 3 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 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 competent authority is directed to consider the request of the petitioner WPC 20909/2013 4 for interim custody, in accordance with the law as 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 matter shall be finally disposed of within 'six weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, after obtaining the analysis report of the 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 shall be pursued in accordance with the law as declared by the Division Bench of this Court in **Sujith v. State of Kerala** ( 2012 (2) KLT 547). After testing, if it is revealed that the commodity transported by the petitioner is not river sand and if any offence is made out under the relevant provisions of the Mines and Minerals ( Development and Regulation ) Act, 1957 and the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967, an opportunity for compounding the WPC 20909/2013 5 offence shall be given, if so desired. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the concerned respondent for further steps. The Writ Petition is disposed of. **Sd/P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE** ks True copy P.s.to Judge WPC 20909/2013 6 WPC 20909/2013 7