W.P.(C) No.11627/2014
The petitioner is the owner of a Jeep bearing registration No.KRN/5505, which was seized by the 2nd respondent, the Sub Inspector of Police, Kuttipuram Police Station alleging illegal transportation of river sand and that after such seizure, the copy of the seizure mahazar has not been furnished to the petitioner in terms of the provision of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 and that the vehicle is still in the custody of the 2nd respondent and that the first respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirur is the statutory authority to adjudicate the matter. It is in the background of these factual aspects the petitioner has sought the following reliefs in this writ petition :-
“(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, orders or directions commanding the first respondent to grant interim custody of the vehicle bearing registration No.KRN/5505 to the petitioner, forth with;
(ii) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
2. It is common ground that the matter in issue relating to the interim custody of the vehicle is covered by the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court rendered in the case between Shan v. State of Kerala reported in 2010 (3) KLT 413 (F.B.). The main directions rendered by the Full Bench in the said decision are contained in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the above said reported decision, which reads thus :-
“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 case 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.
13. 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.”
In the light of the aforementioned directions laid down by the Full Bench, interim custody of the vehicle can be granted to the petitioner on condition that the owner of the vehicle deposits in cash 30% of the value of the vehicle as determined by the appropriate authority under the Motor Vehicles Act and a further condition that the owner of the vehicle shall 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. It was further directed that the proceedings under Section 23 of the above said Act confiscating the vehicle should be concluded within six weeks from the date of seizure of the vehicle, as far as possible etc.
3. In the light of the aforesaid directions issued by the Full Bench, it is ordered that in case the petitioner submits necessary request before the first respondent - Revenue Divisional Officer for interim release of the vehicle, the same shall be considered and granted on condition that the petitioner shall deposit in cash 30% of the value of the vehicle as determined by the appropriate authority under the Motor Vehicles Act and on furnishing immovable property security for the balance of the value of the vehicle. The interim release of the vehicle should be given to the petitioner immediately on the petitioner satisfies the above said conditions. It is further ordered that the final orders in the confiscation proceedings as per Section 23 of the aforementioned Act shall also be passed without much further delay.
With the aforementioned directions and observations, the Writ Petition stands finally disposed of.
W.P.(C).No.11629/2014
The directions and orders granted in W.P.(C) No.11627/ 2014 shall also govern in this case. In case the petitioner herein seeks interim release of his vehicle bearing registration No.KL- 05E/8557 by submitting necessary request before the first respondent, then the first respondent shall order interim release of the said vehicle to the petitioner on the petitioner furnishing cash deposit to the tune of 30% of the value of the vehicle as determined by the appropriate authority under the Motor Vehicles Act and on furnishing immovable property security for the balance of the value of the vehicle. The first respondent shall ensure that the assessment of the value of the vehicle is got done by the competent officer of the Motor Vehicles Department. The interim release of the vehicle should be given to the petitioner immediately when the petitioner satisfies the above said conditions. It is further ordered that the final orders in the confiscation proceedings as per Section 23 of the aforementioned Act shall also be passed without much further delay.
With the aforementioned directions and observations, the Writ Petition stands finally disposed of.
Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE.
//True Copy// P.A. To Judge Jvt