RANJITH B. MOOLYA Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The vehicle belonging to the petitioner was seized by the 3rd respondent under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 (for short 'the Sand Act') on 21/12/2023. The petitioner preferred Ext.P11 an application before the 1st respondent for interim custody of the vehicle. As per Ext.P12 notice, the petitioner was directed to execute bond or furnish bank guarantee for the value of the vehicle, that is Rs.5,00,00.00(Rupees Five lakh only). It is challenging the said condition in Ext.P12 notice, this Writ Petition has been filed.

(2.) I have heard Adv. Ummul Fida, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Vidya Kuriakose, the learned Government Pleader.

(3.) The learned Government Pleader placed before me the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Shan C. T. v. State of Kerala and others [2010 (3) KHC 333] as well as a subsequent decision of the single bench of this Court in Asharaf v. Station House Officer, Kasargode Police Station and Others [2015 (2) KHC 236]. Both these decisions deal with the release of vehicle on interim custody under Sec. 23A of the Sand Act. In Shan C. T. (supra), the Full Bench of this Court held that interim custody of the vehicle can be granted on condition that the owner of the vehicle shall deposit 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 single bench of this Court in Asharaf (supra) has followed the Full Bench.