Two writ appeals were dismissed. The Court held that serving notice of confiscation to the vehicle drivers constituted valid service on the vehicle owners as agents, satisfying audi alteram partem. The impugned judgments dismissing the appeals were maintained in the admission stage.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR &
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
THURSDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2010 / 15TH ASWINA 1932
WA.No. 1329 of 2010()
---------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.20865/2010 Dated 08/07/2010
APPELLANT: PETITIONER
VENUGOPALA KURUP, S/O.PARAMESWARAN PILLAI MANNATH HOUSE,MAZHUKEER,KALLISSERY.P.O, CHENGANNUR.
BY ADV. MR. R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) MR. M.SUNILKUMAR
RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS
BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. BENNY GUVASIS
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/10/2010 ALONG WITH W.A. 1331 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J. CHELAMESWAR, C.J. & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.
W.A. Nos. 1329 and 1331 of 2010
Dated, this the 7th day of October, 2010
JUDGMENT
J. Chelameswar, C.J.
In these two appeals, there is a common question. Therefore we take the facts of W.A. No. 1329 of 2010 to represent the facts of two Writ Appeals.
23. Confiscation of Vehicles : Whoever transports sand without complying with the provisions of this Act shall be liable to be punished and the vehicle used for the transaction is liable for seizure by the Police or Revenue Officials.
However, Rule 27 (3) of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and
W.A. Nos. 1329 &1331 of 2010
: 2 :
Regulation of Removal of Sand Rules, 2002 framed under the above mentioned Act provide that the vehicle confiscated may be returned either to the owner or to the possessor on remitting an amount equal to the price of the vehicle determined by the District Collector along with fine. Therefore, by order dated 7.6.2010, the first respondent directed that the vehicle in question be returned to the owner on condition that the owner deposits an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs. Aggrieved by the said decision, the appellant herein approached this Court, which was dismissed by the judgment dated 8.7.2010, which is under challenge in this appeal.
W.A. Nos. 1329 &1331 of 2010 : 3 :
to be the agent of the owner of the vehicle under the law and the legislature thought that the notice on the agent is sufficient to comply with the requirement of the rule of audi alteram partem . We have no reason to take a different view. In the said circumstances, we are of the opinion that, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgments. Both the Writ Appeals, therefore, dismissed in the admission stage.
J. CHELAMESWAR, CHIEF JUSTICE
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE
kmd
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the notice of confiscation served on the drivers (agents) of the vehicles complied with the requirement of audi alteram partem rule.
Whether there is any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment dismissing the writ petition.
Whether the vehicle confiscated under Section 23 of the Act can be returned upon deposit of fine.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Venugopala Kurup
District Collector, Alappuzha
Tahsildar, Chengannur
State of Kerala
J. Chelemeswar
P.R. Ramachandra Menon
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
