Prasad Vs. the Sub Divisional Magistrate , Mananthavady - Court Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2013 13TH ASHADHA, 1935 WP(C).No. 16760 of 2013 (T) ---------------------------- PETITIONER : -------------- PRASAD, AGED 3 YEARS, S/O. SELVARAJ, PUTHENVEETTIL, PULPALLY P.O., WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): ------------- 1. THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE , MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD DISTRICT”

645.

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR WAYANAD ”

645.

3. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER PULPALLY POLICE STATION, PULPALLY, WAYANAD DISTRICT -673 579. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.T.SHEEBA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rvs. WP(C).No. 16760 of 2013 (T) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS : EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18 1-2013 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANAD. EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 14 3-2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANAD. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL. /True Copy/ P.A.TO JUDGE rvs. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c) No.16760 OF 201.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of July, 2013 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the owner of the vehicle bearing registration not KL 1.5154 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 second respondent to release the vehicle, but till this date no action has been taken by the said 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 33.=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 that the statutory authority to deal with the matter in the light of the provisions of the W.P.(C)No.16760/2013 2 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 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 W.P.(C)No.16760/2013 3 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. By virtue of ordinance No. 60/2012, the power and authority to deal with adjudication proceedings is delegated upon the Revenue Divisional Officer, making the District Collector as the revisional authority. In the said circumstances, the competent authority is directed to consider the application preferred by the petitioner for interim custody, in accordance with the law declared by the Full Bench of this Court in Shan C.T. vs. State of Kerala and others (2010 (3) KHC 33.) 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 W.P.(C)No.16760/2013 4 copy of the judgment. The second respondent shall transmit the file to the Revenue Divisional Officer, for further steps.

5. 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. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE sv. W.P.(C)No.16760/2013 5