Disposed

Muhammed Sabir v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Oct 2013WP(C)/18887/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition regarding vehicle detention while transporting river sand from Karnataka. The Court directed the fourth respondent to enquire into the validity of the pass and adjudicate the matter on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner was set at liberty to file representation before the additional fourth respondent for an enquiry and adjudication within ten days.

Muhammed Sabir Vs State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/12TH ASWINA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 18887 of 2013 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

¶8

MOHAMMED SABIR, S/O.MOYDEEN KUTTY, R/AT UKKILAMBADI THEKKIL FERRY P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPT. OF REVENUE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001

¶13

DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD. 671 121.

¶14

STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VIDYANAGER POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 671 121.

¶15

SUPPLEMENTAL R4 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT/4/10/13 IN I.A.12840/13

¶16

SUPPL.R4: MOHAMMED SABIR, S/O.MOYDEEN KUTTY, R/AT MEDUVIL HOUSE, THEKKIL FERRY.P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT

¶17

BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C).No. 18887 of 2013 (I)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶22

EXT.P1: COPY OF THE GOODS CARRIAGE PERMIT DATED 04/06/2010 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.

¶23

EXT.P2: COPY OF THE PERMIT DATED 03/07/2013 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF MINING & GEOLOGY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA.

¶24

EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD DATED 18/3/2009.

¶25

EXT.P4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.NO.9908/2013 BY THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 10/4/2013.

¶26

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

//True copy//

P.A.to Judge

uj.

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶32

¶33

W.P.(c) No. 18887 OF 2013

¶34

¶35

Dated this the 4^th day of October, 2013

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

The petitioner is the owner of the vehicle bearing No.KL 14 J 4154. The grievance of the petitioner is that the said vehicle has been detained by the respondents, while transporting river sand purchased from the Karnataka on the strength of valid pass, alleging that the petitioner was illegally transporting river sand in Kerala.

¶38

The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the genuineness of the pass produced by the

¶39

petitioner is doubted. It is also pointed out that the pass issued by the concerned authority in the State of Karnataka is only in respect of ' ordinary sand '; whereas the sand transported is admittedly 'river sand '. It is also pointed out that the passes are valid only in the State of

¶40

Karnataka, on the basis of which, no materials could be transported within the State of Kerala. The learned Government Pleader further

¶41

W.P.(C)No.18887/2013 2

¶42

submits that, no tax has been paid in respect of the goods either in Karnataka or at any of the Check Posts in Kerala. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that, by virtue of the relevant orders issued by

¶43

the Government of Karnataka (G.O No.C.250/MMN/2009 dated 28.01.2009 of Government of Karnataka) t here is a ban in transporting even ordinary sand beyond the boundaries of the State of Karnataka .

¶44

After hearing both the side, this Court finds it fit and proper to direct the the additional fourth respondent ( impleaded vide order dated 04/10/2013 in I.A.No.12993/2013) to enquire into the issue and

¶45

adjudicate the matter on merits. Accordingly, the petitioner is set at liberty to file representation with all the relevant particulars before the additional fourth respondent within 'ten days' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, upon which necessary enquiry shall be conducted as to the genuineness of the pass and the matter shall be adjudicated on merits, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner at the earliest, at any rate, within 'six' weeks' from the date of

¶46

receipt of the application, as aforesaid. It is open for the petitioner to seek for interim custody of the vehicle, upon which the same shall be

¶47

W.P.(C)No.18887/2013

¶48

¶49

considered and appropriate orders shall be passed within 'two weeks', taking note of the observation made by the Full Bench in 2010 (3) KHC 333 ( Shan C.T. vs. State of Kerala ). Operative portion of the

¶50

said judgment as contained in paragraph 12 and 13 reads as follows:

¶51

“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.

¶52

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

¶53

W.P.(C)No.18887/2013

¶54

¶55

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.”

¶56

It is further made clear that, on final adjudication, if it is

¶57

proved that the petitioner was transporting 'river sand' in contravention of the provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, further steps by way of prosecution proceedings shall be taken in the light of the ruling rendered by a Division Bench of this Court vide the decision in Sujith

¶58

vs. State of Kerala ( 2012 (2) KLT 547 ).

¶59

The Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶60

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE

¶61

sv.

¶62

W.P.(C)No.18887/2013 5

¶63

W.P.(C)No.18887/2013