K.KUNHALANKUTTY Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the owner of the vehicle bearing No. KL.55 K 1712. The said vehicle was seized by the Highway Police on 22.01.2015 and handed over to the second respondent, 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, as discernible from Ext. P2 mahazar. The custody continues and the matter is still to be reported before the concerned Magistrate in spite of the mandate under Section 23A (2) of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act 2001 (Act 18 of 2001) and the law declared by this Court in Aboobacker v. State of Kerala [2014 (3) KLT 26].

(2.) The law now stands settled as to the course of action to be pursued if at all any offence under the Kerala Protection of the River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001, is committed. Two different courses of action are envisaged under the statute as made clear by the Division Bench of this Court in Sujith V State of Kerala (2012 (2) KLT 547) to the effect that, apart from confiscation proceedings, prosecution proceedings are also mandatory, to be pursued.

(3.) Now, the question to be considered is with regard to the further course of action in connection with the confiscation/ prosecution proceedings and also with regard to the granting of interim custody of the vehicle. The competent authority to finalise the confiscation proceedings, as per the statute, is none other than the 3rd respondent/RDO and there cannot be any dispute in this regard. This has been made clear by this Court as per the decision reported in Faisal v. Assistant Sub Collector (2015 (1) KLT 949). With regard to granting of interim custody, the matter had come up for consideration before a Full Bench of this Court and as per the decision reported in Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala [2010 (3) KHC 333 =2010(3)KLT 413], the Bench observed that, interim custody of the vehicle could be released subject to satisfaction of 30% of the value of the vehicle and on furnishing security for the balance amount, giving further direction to have the confiscation proceedings finalised, within the time as stipulated therein. Paragraphs 12 and 13 of the said verdict read as follows: - 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 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.