Kerala High Court
Swaminathan M vs The District Collector on 14 August, 2012
Author: T.R.Ramachandran Nair
Bench: T.R.Ramachandran Nair
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012/26TH SRAVANA 1934
WP(C).No. 19452 of 2012 (F)
-------------------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-----------------------
SWAMINATHAN M.,AGED 40 YEARS
S/O.VELAYUDHAN, MULAKKAL HOUSE, VARYATH PADY ROAD
KADAVANADU P.O.
MALAPPURAM DT.(OWNER OF KL-54/2267).
BY ADV. SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS
RESPONDENT(S):
------------------------
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, MALAPPURAM P.O., MALAPPURAM - 679 505.
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
PONNANI POLICE STATION, PONNANI P.O.
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679 577.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.C.VINCENT
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17-08-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
tss
W.P.(C) NO.19452/2012
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS
P1:- COPY OF THE SAND PASS ISSUED BY THE PORT CONSERVATOR TO THE
PETITIONER'S VEHICLE DATED 14.08.2012.
P2:-COPY OF THE SAND PASS ISSUED BY THE PONNANI MUNICIPALITY TO THE
PETITIONER'S VEHICLE DATED 14.08.2012.
P3:- COPY OF THE SAND PASS ISSUED BY THE PONNANI MUNICIPALITY FOR THE
TRANSPORTATION OF REVENUE SAND ON 14.08.2012.
P4:-COPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHAZAR DATED 14.08.2012 ISSUED BY THE POLICE TO
THE PETITIONER.
P5:-COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 14.08.2012.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
tss
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C).No. 19452 of 2012
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF AUGUST, 2012
JUDGMENT
The petitioner's vehicle is involved in a proceedings under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. The vehicle was seized on 14.8.2012 at 1.50 p.m. by the second respondent Sub Inspector of Police. It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioner is the agreement owner and in possession of Mini Lorry bearing Registration No.KL-54/2267. According to him, the seizure is illegal, as the transportation was accompanied by valid passes, produced as Exts.P1 and P2. This writ petition is filed praying for a direction to the respondents to report about the seizure of the vehicle to the jurisdictional Magistrate, in the light of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Sujith v. State of Kerala (2012 (2) KLT 547).
2. Heard learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
3. In Sujith's case (supra), in paragraph 13, the following directions have been issued by this Court:
"It is hereby ordered that the revenue and police authorities, while effecting seizure, shall ensure that any revenue official effecting W.P.(C).No. -2- the seizure, notifies such seizure, also to a police official, over and above the requirement in S.22 of the Act and the Rules. That police official may effect seizure of those goods and report such seizure to the jurisdictional Magistrate in accordance with law and any police officer effecting seizure shall, apart from reporting any such seizure to the jurisdictional Magistrate, also place a report of such seizure before the concerned revenue authority so that action can follow through the criminal court and through the revenue authority in terms of the laws. Following the aforesaid, it is further ordered that in all pending cases, the competent police officer shall effect seizure and report the same to the jurisdictional magistrate, if not already done and the competent revenue authority shall make appropriate complaint to the jurisdictional Magistrate at the earliest. This would also enable the owners of the goods or vehicles to apply for interim custody in terms of S.451 or 457 Cr.P.C., as the case may be. In ordering release, the Judicial Magistrate shall be guided by the terms laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Shan v. State of Kerala (2010 (3) KLT 413 (FB). The appropriate authorities shall also file complaints for initiating prosecution in all cases, where offences under the Act are disclosed. These directions shall apply in dealing with sand and vehicles, seized by the police or revenue authority under the provisions of the Act or the Code of Criminal Procedure, over and above the directions in Moosakoya (2008 (1) KLT 538) and Shoukathali (2009 (1) KLT 640), until appropriate legislative W.P.(C).No. -3- provisions are brought in."
4. There will be a direction to the second respondent to furnish a report about the seizure of the vehicle, to the jurisdictional Magistrate within a period of seven days from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition by the petitioner, for enabling him to seek for interim custody of the vehicle. There will be a further direction to submit a report to the first respondent for expediting the confiscation proceedings, if not already forwarded the same. The first respondent will adjudicate the matter finally in terms of the provisions of the Act, after hearing the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner will be free to rely upon Exts.P1 to P3 before the first respondent and the effect of the same will be duly considered while passing orders.
The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.
(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) kav/