Kerala High Court
Nishanth A vs The District Collector
Author: P.R.Ramachandra Menon
Bench: P.R.Ramachandra Menon
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013/23RD SRAVANA, 1935
WP(C).No. 20121 of 2013 (M)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
--------------------------
1. NISHANTH A.,
S/O.SREEDHARAN, RESIDING AT VYSAKHAM, NEAR KALLIASSERY
CENTRAL U.P.SCHOOL, P.O.ANCHAMPEEDIKA, KANNUR DIST.
2. N.ASHOKAN,
S/O.GOVINDAN, NEELI HOUSE, EENTHODU,
P.O.AROLI, PAPPINISSERY,KANNUR DIST.
BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH
RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, KANNUR - 670 001.
2. PAPPINISSERY GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
KADAVU COMMITTEE, REP.BY SECRETARY, PAPPINISSERY,
KANNUR DIST. 670 561.
3. THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
VALAPATTANAM POLICE STATION, KANNUR DIST. - 670 010.
4. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KANNUR - 670 001.
R1 TO R4 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 14-08-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Kss
WP(C).No. 20121 of 2013 (M)
------------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:
----------------------------------------
EXT.P1: THE TRUE COPY OF THE LEDGER EXTRACT OF KADAVU COMMITTEE.
EXT.P2: THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE
1ST RESPONDENT BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DTD. 09/05/13.
EXT.P3: THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE
1ST RESPONDENT BY THE 2ND PETITIONER DTD. 20/06/13.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:
----------------------------------------- N I L
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
Kss
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.P.(C) No. 20121 of 2013
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated, this the 14th day of August, 2013
JUDGMENT
The first petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing No. KL 58 E 3869. The said vehicle has been detained by the 3rd respondent on 08.05.2013 while in custody of the second petitioner, alleging illegal transportation of the river sand against the relevant provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act. The case of the petitioners is that no offence has been committed by them and that the seizure is per se wrong and illegal in all respects. Despite filing Ext. P2 petition before the first respondent for release of sand and the vehicle, no action has been taken by the said respondent so far. Hence this writ petition.
2. The learned Government Pleader submits that the request made by the petitioners before the first respondent to release the sand is not liable to be entertained, if there is an offence under the relevant provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, in view of W.P.(C) No. 20121 of 2013 : 2 : the specific statutory bar in this regard. As on the date of seizure, the relevant enactment had undergone a substantial change, by virtue of the amendment w.e.f. 25.11.2012, whereby the power and authority to deal with adjudication/confiscation proceedings came to be vested upon the Revenue Divisional Officer, making the District Collector as the revisional authority. Hence the matter is liable to be considered by the 4th respondent.
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 applications for interim custody should be dealt with. Operative portion of the said judgment as contained in paragraph 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 W.P.(C) No. 20121 of 2013 : 3 : 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 first respondent is directed to transmit the entire records to the competent authority/4th respondent forthwith, upon which, the 4th respondent shall consider the request of the petitioner for interim custody of vehicle concerned, in accordance with the law declared W.P.(C) No. 20121 of 2013 : 4 : 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 the above proceedings. The matter shall be finally disposed of within 'six weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. It is open for the concerned respondent to take appropriate steps in connection with the prosecution proceedings as made clear by the Division Bench of this Court in Sujith Vs. State of Kerala (2012 (2) KLT 547), if any offence is made out.
The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the Writ Petition before the respondents for further steps.
The Writ Petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE) kmd