Sameer.V. Vs. the Revenue Divisional Officer - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1095106
CourtKerala High Court
Decided OnOct-09-2013
JudgeHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
AppellantSameer.V.
RespondentThe Revenue Divisional Officer
Excerpt:
in the high court of kerala at ernakulam present: the honourable mr.justice p.r.ramachandra menon wednesday, the9h day of october201317th aswina, 1935 wp(c).no. 24421 of 2013 (c) ---------------------------- petitioner: ----------- semeer, aged23years, s/o.ahammed, residing at palakkal house, thavanoor p.o., ponnani, malappuram district. by advs.sri.c.v.manuvilsan sri. p.g. suresh sri.g.sudheer (thuravoor) smt.k.vidya sri.rajan vishnuraj sri.v.harish respondents: ------------ 1. the revenue divisional officer, malappuram district, pin67650.2. the sub inspector of police kalpakanchery, malappuram, pin67650. by sr.government pleader sri.joseph george this writ petition (civil) having come up for admission on0910-2013, the court on the same day delivered the following: wp(c).no. 24421 of 2013 (c) ---------------------------- appendix petitioner's exhibits: --------------------- exhibit-p1: a true copy of the registration particulars of the vehicle vide no.kl07c-2133. exhibit-p2: a true copy of the representation dated2309.2013, preferred by the petitioner before the1t respondent. respondents' exhibits: nil ---------------------- /true copy/ p.s. to judge cl p.r. ramachandra menon, j............................................................................... w.p.(c)no.24421 of2013......................................................................... dated this the 9th october, 2013 judgment petitioner is the owner of the vehicle bearing registration no.kl-07c/2133. the said vehicle has been detained by the second respondent 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 act, 2001. being aggrieved of seizure of the vehicle, the petitioner submitted ext.p2 application before the first respondent with a request to test the sample of the sand in the vehicle and to complete the adjudication proceedings. no action is forthcoming and hence the petitioner has filed this writ petition.2. heard the learned government pleader as well.3. with regard to the claim for having the vehicle released, in relation to the provisions of the 'sand act', it is brought to the notice of this court that it is covered by the full bench decision in shan c.t. vs. state of kerala and others (2010 (3) khc333). operative portion of the said judgment as contained in paragraph 12 and 13 reads as follows: w.p.(c)no.24421 of20132 "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 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, w.p.(c)no.24421 of20133 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. the first respondent/rdo shall ensure that, sample of the goods carried in the vehicle is taken and send for chemical analysis to the competent laboratory. the adjudication proceedings shall be finalised in accordance with law declared by this court in shan c.t. vs. state of kerala and others (2010 (3) khc333) followed by other appropriate steps for prosecution, if the offence is made out , as explained in sujith vs. state of kerala (2012 (2)klt547. the petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the first respondent/concerned authority for appropriate action. the writ petition is disposed of. p.r.ramachandra menon judge lk
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE9H DAY OF OCTOBER201317TH ASWINA, 1935 WP(C).No. 24421 of 2013 (C) ---------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------- SEMEER, AGED23YEARS, S/O.AHAMMED, RESIDING AT PALAKKAL HOUSE, THAVANOOR P.O., PONNANI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN SRI. P.G. SURESH SRI.G.SUDHEER (THURAVOOR) SMT.K.VIDYA SRI.RAJAN VISHNURAJ SRI.V.HARISH RESPONDENTS: ------------ 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN67650.

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KALPAKANCHERY, MALAPPURAM, PIN67650. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON0910-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 24421 of 2013 (C) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: --------------------- EXHIBIT-P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION PARTICULARS OF THE VEHICLE VIDE NO.KL07C-2133. EXHIBIT-P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED2309.2013, PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE1T RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL ---------------------- /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE cl P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

.............................................................................. W.P.(C)No.24421 OF2013......................................................................... Dated this the 9th October, 2013

JUDGMENT

Petitioner is the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-07C/2133. The said vehicle has been detained by the second respondent 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 Act, 2001. Being aggrieved of seizure of the vehicle, the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 application before the first respondent with a request to test the sample of the sand in the vehicle and to complete the adjudication proceedings. No action is forthcoming and hence the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

3. With regard to the claim for having the vehicle released, in relation to the provisions of the 'Sand Act', it is brought to the notice of this Court that it is covered by the Full Bench decision in Shan C.T. vs. State of Kerala and others (2010 (3) KHC333). Operative portion of the said judgment as contained in paragraph 12 and 13 reads as follows: W.P.(C)No.24421 OF20132 "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 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, W.P.(C)No.24421 OF20133 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. The first respondent/RDO shall ensure that, sample of the goods carried in the vehicle is taken and send for chemical analysis to the competent laboratory. The adjudication proceedings shall be finalised in accordance with law declared by this Court in Shan C.T. vs. State of Kerala and others (2010 (3) KHC333) followed by other appropriate steps for prosecution, if the offence is made out , as explained in Sujith vs. State of Kerala (2012 (2)KLT547. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the Writ Petition before the first respondent/concerned authority for appropriate action. The writ petition is disposed of. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE lk