Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY,THE27H DAY OF JANUARY20147TH MAGHA, 1935 WP(C).No. 2407 of 2014 (A) --------------------------- PETITIONER : -------------------------- ABDUL HAKEEM.C, AGED23YEARS, S/O. ABDUL NAZER C., CHEENIATH HOUSE, CODACAL P.O., MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TIRUR POLICE STATION, TIRUR-696 129.
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TIRUR POLICE STATION, TIRUR-676 129. *ADDL.R3 & R4 IMPLEADED *ADDL.R3: THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM. *ADDL.R4: THE JOINT TRANSPORT OFFICER, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM. *ADDL.R3 & R4 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER
DATED2701/2014 IN IA.NO.1405/2014. R1,R2,ADDL.R3 & R4 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON2701-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C).No. 2407 of 2014 (A) --------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- P1 : COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND ONE IBRAHIM. P2 : COPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHAZAR PREPARED BY2D RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
--------------------------- W.P.(C) No.2407 of 2014 -------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of January, 2014
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner of a goods vehicle bearing registration No.KL-10-X-7497. The said motor vehicle was seized by the second respondent at 7 PM on 17.1.2014 on the allegation that it was used to transport river sand without a valid permit. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for an order directing the respondents to release the motor vehicle to him after permitting him to compound the offence in terms of the provisions contained in the Kerala Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957.
2. When the writ petition came up for hearing today, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that as the vehicle was seized on 17.1.2014 alleging violation of the provisions contained in the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001, the additional third respondent, who is the competent authority under the Act may be directed to conclude the proceedings initiated against the petitioner within six weeks and to direct interim custody to be given if within a period of six weeks the W.P.(C) No.2407/2014 2 said officer is not in a position to conclude the proceedings. The learned government Pleader appearing for the respondents did not oppose the said request.
3. A Full Bench of this Court has in Shan v. State of Kerala [2010 (3) KLT413(F.B.)] directed that the competent authority under section 23 of the Act should conclude the proceedings within six weeks from the date of seizure of vehicle and also directed that if for any reason the authority is not in a position to conclude the proceedings within six weeks, interim custody shall be given to the owner of the vehicle on the owner of the vehicle depositing 30% of the value of vehicle as determined by the appropriate authority in cash and furnishing bank guarantee or immovable property as security for the balance amount. In the light of the said decision, I dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the additional third respondent to conclude the proceedings, if any, initiated against the petitioner/petitioner's motor vehicle under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 expeditiously and in any event within six weeks from 17.1.2014, after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to put forward his contentions. If for any reason the additional third respondent is not in a position to complete the W.P.(C) No.2407/2014 3 proceedings within the said period of six weeks, interim custody of the motor vehicle shall be given to the petitioner on his depositing 30% of the value of vehicle as determined by the appropriate authority in cash and on furnishing bank guarantee or immovable property as security for the balance amount. The amount so deposited and the security furnished shall be subject to the final outcome of the proceedings initiated against the petitioner. The competent authority shall also act as directed by this court in Sujith v. State of Kerala (2012 (2) KLT547, if he finds that the petitioner has violated the provisions contained in the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 . P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps