ABDUL SALAM Vs. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the owner of the vehicle Mahindra CABKING Goods Carrier Truck bearing No. KL.13H/2841. The said vehicle was seized by the third respondent/Station House Officer on 06.03.2013 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. Though the vehicle was produced before the second respondent/RDO, adjudication proceedings are still to be completed. The case of the petitioner is that the river sand seized from the petitioner's vehicle was having valid pass. Reliance is sought to be placed on the verdict passed by this Court in Aboobacker v. State of Kerala, 2014 3 KerLT 26 in this regard.

(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 KerLT 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 Faisal v. Assistant Sub Collector, 2015 1 KerLT 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 Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala, 2010 3 KerLT 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:-