LAWS(KER)-2014-4-16

RAHMATH Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

Decided On April 29, 2014
RAHMATH Appellant
V/S
DISTRICT COLLECTOR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the seizure of the vehicle on the allegation that the vehicle was found transporting two sacks of river sand without any permit as contemplated under the provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2002 and the rules framed thereunder. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 22717 of 2013, in which this Court as per Ext.P3 judgment dated 11.09.2013 had directed the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned to consider the application preferred by the petitioner for interim custody of the vehicle in view of the legal principles laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in the decision in Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala reported in 2010 (3) KLT 413. In pursuance to the compliance of the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P4 judgment, the District Collector had instructed the Village Officer, Pattambi to make a physical verification to ascertain as to whether there is river sand in the vehicle. The Village Officer, Pattambi as per Ext.P4 report reported that it was stated that there was two bags of river sand at the time of seizure; but at the time of inspection, the vehicle was seen kept in the Challissery Police Station and there is only = packet of sand in the vehicle.

(2.) IT is submitted that the value of the vehicle has been fixed at Rs. 3,55,000/ -, that the petitioner is not in a position to get the vehicle released after paying the 1/3rd of the value of the vehicle as cash deposit and that the financier of the vehicle had caused to send a lawyer notice to him directing to pay Rs. 80,000/ - being the loan advanced for purchasing the vehicle. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a direction may be issued for grant of interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner without payment of any such amount.

(3.) IT is categorically directed in the aforementioned Full Bench decision that the interim custody of the vehicle can be granted only on condition that the owner of the vehicle should deposit in cash at least 30% of the value of the vehicle as determined by the competent authority under the Motor Vehicles Act and that the owner of the vehicle should provide either a bank guarantee or immovable property security for the balance amount of the vehicle.