IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 10TH MAY 2011 / 20TH VAISAKHA 1933 WP(C).No. 13171 of 2011(V) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------------- SHIHABUDHEEN.P.S, S/O. SAIDALAVI, AGED 26 YEARS, POTTUKUNDIL HOUSE, DESAMANGALAM.P.O, PALLUR, THRISSUR (OWNER OF KL-10/A-7601) BY ADV. SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS RESPONDENTS(S): ------------------------ 1. THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE/RDO, OFFICE OF RDO, THRISSUR -3. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, WADAKKANCHERY POLICE STATION, WADAKKANCHERY.P.O, THRISSUR - 680 523. BY GOVT. PLEADER STI.T.B.HOOD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J --------------------------------------- WP(C).No.13171 of 2011 V --------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of May, 2011. J U D G M E N T The grievance of the petitioner, who is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-10/A-7601, is that though the respondents seized his vehicle alleging illegal transport of the river sand, no serious statutory procedure has been adopted with respect to the vehicle in spite of the fact that the vehicle is lying idle and exposed to rain and sun light and the value of the vehicle is being deteriorated. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court preferring the above writ petition with the following prayers: (i) issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the vehicle bearing Regn.No.KL-10/A-7601 to the petitioner on interim custody. (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing first respondent to consider Ext.P1 request submitted by the petitioner and pass orders on the same within a time limit. WP(C) NO.13171 OF 2011 :-2-: 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Pleader. 3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of especially in the light of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala and others (2010(3) KHC 333). In the above decision, the Full Bench has held in paras.12 and 13 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 Section 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 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 WP(C) NO.13171 OF 2011 :-3-: 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.” 4. In the light of the facts and circumstances involved in this case and in view of the above decision of the Full Bench cited supra, this writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to release the vehicle bearing registration No.KL 10/A-7601 as an interim measure to the petitioner on condition, if his claim is otherwise proper and order, that the petitioner deposits 30% of the value of the vehicle, which have been determined by the appropriate authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, in cash and on further condition that the petitioner should provide either a bank guarantee or immovable property as security for the balance of the value of the vehicle so determined and on further condition that the petitioner shall not alienate the vehicle and shall not make any alteration so as to either diminish the value or change the appearance. The amounts so deposited and the security furnished WP(C) NO.13171 OF 2011 :-4-: would follow the final outcome of the confiscation proceedings. 5. There will be a direction to the respondents that the proceedings under Section 23 of the above Act, for the confiscation of the vehicle shall be expedited and concluded at the earliest considering the general direction issued by the Full Bench in the decision cited supra. 6. The petitioner is directed to produce a copy of this judgment and file a petition for interim custody of the vehicle before the respondents within two weeks from today, if he has not already filed, and on receipt of a copy of this judgment and such petition if any, the respondents are directed to release the vehicle accordingly. The writ petition is disposed of as above. V.K.MOHANAN, (Judge) MBS/ WP(C) NO.13171 OF 2011 :-5-: