IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH MAY 2011 / 16TH VAISAKHA 1933 WP(C).No. 13055 of 2011(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER:- ------------------ RADHAMANI BABU, W/O BABU, AGED 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT 'BICHU BHAVANAM', IRANIKUZHI P.O., CHERUMUKHA, MAVELIKKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690558. BY ADV. SRI.A.K.ABDUL AZEEZ SRI.RENJIT GEORGE RESPONDENTS:- --------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NOORANADU. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CHENGANNUR. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.13055 of 2011-F. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 6th May, 2011. J U D G M E N T The grievance of the petitioner, who is the agreement holder/registered owner of the Swaraj Mazda tipper bearing registration No.KL 31/B 1081, is that though the respondent seized his vehicle alleging illegal transport of the river sand, no serious statutory procedure has adopted with respect to the vehicle inspite 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) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to release the Swaraj Mazda tipper bearing Regn. No.KL 31/B 1081 forthwith by considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on the basis of Ext.P2. WP(C).No.13055 of 2011-F. 2 (ii) declare that the act of the respondents is illegal. (iii) issue any other writ, order of direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. 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 WP(C).No.13055 of 2011-F. 3 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 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 respondents to consider Exts.P2 and P3 WP(C).No.13055 of 2011-F. 4 complaints and to release the vehicle bearing registration No.KL 31/B 1081 as an interim measure to the petitioner on condition 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 for the value of the vehicle so determined. The amounts so deposited and the security furnished would follow the final outcome of the confiscation proceedings. In addition to the above conditions, the petitioner shall also produce a consent letter/no objection statement of the RC owner of the vehicle, before the first respondent in favour of the petitioner to release the vehicle. 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 WP(C).No.13055 of 2011-F. 5 concluded at the earliest considering the general direction issued by the Full Bench in the decision cited supra. V.K.MOHANAN, (Judge) Kvs/-