Disposed

Sidhik v. the District Collector

Kerala HC7 Nov 2013WP(C)/9274/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a writ petition seeking release of a seized vehicle allegedly containing river sand. The Court directed that the seizure must be finalized within six weeks after obtaining a laboratory analysis report on the sand sample and referred matters to the impleaded Additional 7th Respondent pending such adjudication.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was directed to approach the additional 7th respondent for interim custody of the vehicle; proceedings to be finalized within six weeks.

Sidhik Vs the District Collector — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶3

THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/16TH KARTHIKA, 1935

¶4

WP(C).No. 9274 of 2013 (H)

¶5

PETITIONER(S):

¶6

SIDHIK,AGED,29 YEARS, S/O.SYEDALAVI, THOTUNGAPARAMBIL HOUSE CHAMRAVATTOM P.O., TIRUR TALUK.

¶7

BY ADV. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN

¶8

RESPONDENT(S):

¶9

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM-676 505.

¶10

2. CHATHUKUTI, THE HOME GUARD, KALPAKANCHERY POLICE STATION MALAPPURAM-676 551.

¶11

3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALPAKANCHERY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN- 676 551.

¶12

4. THE PORT CONSERVATOR, PONNANI, MALAPPURAM-679 557.

¶13

5. THE GEOLOGIST, THE DISTRICT OFFICE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, MANJERY, MALAPPURAM-676 121.

¶14

6. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶15

*** ADDL.R7 IMPLEADED:-**

¶16

7. THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE,TIRUR.

¶17

IMPLEADED AS ADDL.7TH RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 7.11.2013 ITS I.A.NO. 9054/13.

¶18

R1 , R3,R5,R6 & R7 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.T.LILLY.

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

¶20

KKS

¶21

WP(C).No. 9274 of 2013 (H)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:-

¶24

EXHIBIT-P1: THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RC PARTICULARS OF THE VEHICLE BEARING REGN NO.KL-08G-3382.

¶25

EXHIBIT-P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE PASS ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶26

EXHIBIT-P3: A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 22.03.2013, PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶27

EXHIBIT-P4: A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHAZAR.

¶28

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:- NIL -----------------------------------------

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO.JUDGE

KKS

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶33

========================

¶34

W.P.(C). No. 9274 of 2013

¶35

¶36

Dated this the 7^th day of November, 2013

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

The petitioner is the owner of the vehicle bearing No. KL08-G 3382 . The said vehicle was seized by the 2^nd respondent on 21.03.2013 alleging illegal transportation of river sand in violation of the provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. The case of the petitioner is that, he had not transported river sand but port sand and Ext.P2 is the pass issued by the Ponnani Port Conservator. The petitioner has submitted Ext. P3 representation for redressal of the grievance and release of the vehicle. The petitioner would like to test the sample of sand in the vehicle and also to finalize the adjudication proceedings, but the same is not finalized till date and hence the writ petition.

¶39

Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

¶40

After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the

¶41

proceedings shall be finalized after obtaining the analysis report of sand tested in a competent laboratory. The competent

¶42

W.P.C. No.9274 of 2013 -2-

¶43

authority to deal with the matter is the additional 7^th respondent who has been impleaded in the party array as per order in I.A.No. 9054/13. In the said circumstance, the petitioner is relegated to approach the additional 7^th respondent by filing necessary application for redressal of the grievance, upon which the said respondent shall consider the claim for interim custody of the vehicle within two weeks, subject to satisfaction of the conditions as per the Full Bench decision of this Court reported in

¶44

Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala [2010 (3) KHC 333 =2010(3)

¶45

KLT 413] . Operative portion of the said judgment as contained in paragraphs 12 and 13 reads as follows:

¶46

“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

¶47

W.P.C. No.9274 of 2013

¶48

-3-

¶49

follow the final outcome of the confiscation proceedings.

¶50

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.”

¶51

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

¶52

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, 2001, further proceedings shall be pursued in accordance with the law declared by Division

¶53

W.P.C. No.9274 of 2013

¶54

-4-

¶55

Bench of this Court in Sujith V State of Kerala (2012 (2) KLT 547). The adjudication proceedings shall be finalized within 'six weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶56

The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the Writ Petition before the additional 7^th respondent for further steps. Writ petition is disposed of.

¶57

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

¶58

kp/-

Sidhik v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sidhik v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

E.a.Nisa Vs P.v.Narayanan

Jose Vs Indu Lekha

Suseela Dinakaran Vs Director, Kerala Fisheries Department

Ajit Nair Vs Bar Council of India

V.Hamza Vs State Level Committee

M/S Padma Agencies Vs Secretary to the Government and 4 Others