Latheesh Vs. the District Collector

Latheesh vs The District Collector

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Feb 17, 2014

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1129750

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1129750
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice P.N.Ravindran
Decided On: Feb 17, 2014
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Latheesh

Respondent

The District Collector

Excerpt

.....was not river sand but sea sand and that if a sample had been taken and tested, it could have been found that the sand carried in the vehicle is not river sand as alleged by the police but sea sand. it is also contended that notwithstanding the fact that the vehicle was seized on 10.11.2013 till date such a step has not been taken and the petitioner's vehicle has not been released to him. in this writ petition the petitioner prays for an order directing the respondents to release the goods vehicle bearing registration no.kl-59-c-9610 to him forthwith. w.p.(c)no.28992 of 2013 2 2. a full bench of this court has in shan c.t. v. state of kerala [2010 (3) klt413 directed that proceedings initiated under the kerala protection of river banks and regulation of removal of sand act, 2001 shall be concluded within six weeks from the date of seizure. the full bench also directed that interim custody should be given if applied for in the event of the competent authority not being in a position to conclude the proceedings within a period of six weeks.3. when the writ petition came up for hearing today, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not in a position to deposit 30% of the value of the motor vehicle and therefore, the writ petition may be disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to conclude the proceedings initiated against the petitioner within six weeks from today, after getting the sample of the sand analysed by the geologist. in the light of the aforesaid submission and having regard to the fact that the vehicle was seized on 10.11.2013 and more than three months have passed thereafter, i dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the second respondent to conclude the proceedings initiated against the petitioner after having the sand w.p.(c)no.28992 of 2013 3 carried in the petitioner's motor vehicle analysed and after affording him an opportunity of being heard, expeditiously and in any event within.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY,THE17H DAY OF FEBRUARY201428TH MAGHA, 1935 WP(C).No. 28992 of 2013 (Y) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- LATHEESH T.V S/O.M.V KRISHNAN, THEKKADAVAN VEEDU, PALIYERI KARIVELLUR P.O, TALIPARAMABA, KANNUR DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD.

2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KANHANGAD.

3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIDYANAGAR POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.C.VINCENT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON1702-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 28992 of 2013 (Y) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF PETITIONER'S VEHCILE NO KL59C9610 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL --------------------------------------- /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE VPV P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P.(C)No.28992 of 2013 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 17th day of February, 2014

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the registered owner of a goods vehicle bearing registration No.KL-59-C-9610. The said vehicle was seized by the third respondent on 10.11.2013 on the allegation that it was used to transport river sand without a valid pass. Thereupon Crime No.671/2013 of Vidyanagar Police Station was registered against the petitioner alleging commission of the offence punishable under section 20 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. It is contended that the sand carried in the vehicle was not river sand but sea sand and that if a sample had been taken and tested, it could have been found that the sand carried in the vehicle is not river sand as alleged by the Police but sea sand. It is also contended that notwithstanding the fact that the vehicle was seized on 10.11.2013 till date such a step has not been taken and the petitioner's vehicle has not been released to him. In this writ petition the petitioner prays for an order directing the respondents to release the goods vehicle bearing registration No.KL-59-C-9610 to him forthwith. W.P.(C)No.28992 of 2013 2 2. A Full Bench of this Court has in Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala [2010 (3) KLT413 directed that proceedings initiated under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 shall be concluded within six weeks from the date of seizure. The Full Bench also directed that interim custody should be given if applied for in the event of the competent authority not being in a position to conclude the proceedings within a period of six weeks.

3. When the writ petition came up for hearing today, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not in a position to deposit 30% of the value of the motor vehicle and therefore, the writ petition may be disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to conclude the proceedings initiated against the petitioner within six weeks from today, after getting the sample of the sand analysed by the Geologist. In the light of the aforesaid submission and having regard to the fact that the vehicle was seized on 10.11.2013 and more than three months have passed thereafter, I dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the second respondent to conclude the proceedings initiated against the petitioner after having the sand W.P.(C)No.28992 of 2013 3 carried in the petitioner's motor vehicle analysed and after affording him an opportunity of being heard, expeditiously and in any event within an outer limit of six weeks from the date on which the petitioner produces a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition complete in all aspects before him. The second respondent shall before hearing the petitioner, furnish to him a copy of the report of the Geologist and shall also grant interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner if he is prepared to comply with the conditions stipulated by the Full Bench of this Court in Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala [2010 (3) KLT413. Needless to say, in the event of the Revenue Divisional Officer entering a finding that the petitioner has violated the provisions contained in the the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001, steps shall be taken to prosecute him as directed by this Court in Sujith v. State of Kerala [2012 (2) KLT547. Sd/- P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE vpv

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2014 Same Parties Latheesh vs The District Collector Same Subject Education Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice P.N.Ravindran