Quashed

Shahul Hameed K.A. v. District Collector, Kottayam

Kerala HC8 Dec 2014WP(C)/19191/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court quashed an order confiscating a vehicle for alleged illegal transportation of river sand because the vehicle was likely loaded before the transport permit expired, and the Collector ignored evidence supporting the permit's validity. The deposit and security were directed to be released.

What did the court decide?

Exhibit P3 order set aside; deposit and security furnished by the petitioner to be released within three weeks.

Shahul Hameed K.A. Vs District Collector, Kottayam — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 19191 of 2012 (Y)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

-----------------------

¶8

SHAHUL HAMEED K.A., AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL KHADER, THEKKEPARAMBIL, VADAKARA P.O., THALAYOLAPARAMBU, KOTTAYAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

-------------------------

¶12

1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM - 686 002.

¶13

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THALAYOLAPARAMBU - 686 141.

¶14

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANITHA RAVINDRAN

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-12-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

msv/

¶17

WP(C).No. 19191 of 2012 (Y)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶20

--------------------------------------

¶21

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF THE VEHICLE GOODS CARRIAGE OPEN TIPPER BEARING NO KL-36-2624.

¶22

EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE PASS DATED 26-04-2012 ISSUED BY THE VELLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH COUNTERSIGNED BY TAHSILDAR VAIKOM.

¶23

EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO E10(1) 22415/12/K DIS DATED 8/8/2012 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶25

EXT.R1(a): TRUE COPY OF THE FIR.

¶26

EXT.R1(b): TRUE COPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHAZAR.

¶27

EXT.R1(c): TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT.

¶28

EXT.R1(d): TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE.

Ms v/

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶33

= = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.19191 of 2012-Y.

¶34

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

¶35

Dated this the 8^th day of December, 2014.

¶36

J U D G M E N T

¶37

The petitioner's vehicle bearing registration No.KL-352624 has been seized alleging transportation of river sand without permit. Ext.P3 is the proceedings of the District Collector ordering confiscation of the vehicle. The vehicle has been released to the petitioner based on an interim order issued by this Court on depositing of Rs.1.5 lakhs and also offering security for the balance amount. According to the petitioner, he has pass for transporting the river sand. Ext.P2 is the pass. Ext.P2 pass indicates that the time was upto 11.30 am. The vehicle was seized by the police at 11.50 am. In the proceedings before the District Collector, the Secretary of the Panchayat who issued the pass to the petitioner admitted that the petitioner is having valid pass and there was a correction in the pass that was done by the Secretary. However, the District Collector found that the

¶38

WP(C).No.19191/2012-Y.

¶39

¶40

petitioner was unable to produce any valid pass and therefore the vehicle is liable to be confiscated. The question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner was in possession of necessary pass to transport the river sand. The vehicle was seized at around at 11.50 am. Admittedly, Ext.P2 pass have a validity upto 11.30 am. It is true that the validity of the pass was expired at the time of seizure. However, as seen from the mahazar itself, the distance from the kadavu to the place where the vehicle was seized is around 2.5 kms. Therefore, in all probable estimate the vehicle was loaded with sand at least before 11.30 am. The District Collector did not advert to the statement given by the Secretary of the Panchayat. The District Collector has no case that the Secretary has given the statement only to help the petitioner. The officials of the Panchayat need not be disbelieved. In such circumstances, the punishment meted out to the petitioner of confiscation of the vehicle is unsustainable and therefore, I am of the view, Ext.P3 order is unsustainable. In view of

¶41

¶42

WP(C).No.19191/2012-Y.

¶43

the above, Ext.P3 is set aside. The petitioner had made a deposit pursuant to the interim direction. There shall be a direction to release the deposit made by the petitioner and also to release the security furnished by him. Needful shall be done within a period of three weeks.

¶44

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶45

Sd/A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, (Judge)

¶46

Kvs/-

¶47

// true copy //

Shahul Hameed K.A. v. District Collector, Kottayam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahul Hameed K.A. v. District Collector, Kottayam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suhail T.S. Vs Vijaya Bank

C.K.Molamma Vs the Union of India

Khader Kunju K.M. Vs the District Collector

Aruna Kumar Vs Special Tahsildar, L.R.

Sakina Abdul Rahman Vs Medical Council of India

Chinnu Abraham Vs State of Kerala