Rizwan vs The Sub Inspector Of Police
2022 Latest Caselaw 9351 Ker

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                           PRESENT
           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 19TH SRAVANA,
                            1944
                 WP(C) NO. 22426 OF 2022
PETITIONER

          RIZWAN
          S/O ABDUL RAZAK B.A, MUZTHAK MANZIL, DELI
          KUNNUPARA, BARE P O, KASARGOD DISTRICT,
           PIN - 671319 (OWNER OF TIPPER LORRY BEARING
          REGISTRATION NO KL-54-7130)

          BY ADVS.
          P.M.ZIRAJ
          IRFAN ZIRAJ

RESPONDENTS

   1      THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
          BEKKAL POLICE STATION, KASARGOD DISTRICT, ,
          PIN - 671318
   2      THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
          KANJANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, , PIN - 671318
   3      THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST,
          DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, KASARGOD
          DISTRICT, , PIN - 671121
   4      THE DIRECTOR
          MINING AND GEOLOGY, OFFICE OF THE MINING AND
          GEOLOGY, KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTAM,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM , PIN - 695001

          SRI.SYAMANTHAK    GOVERNMENT PLEADER


       THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 10.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P(C) No.22426 of 2022        2
]


                     JUDGMENT

Dated this the 10th day of August, 2022

The petitioner, whose vehicle has been

seized by the 1st respondent on the allegation of illegal

transportation of beach sand, is before this Court

seeking to direct the 1st respondent to report the

seizure regarding the vehicle of the petitioner to the 2 nd

respondent within a reasonable period.

2. The petitioner states that the vehicle bearing

Registration No.KL-54-7130 was seized by the 1 st

respondent-Sub Inspector of Police alleging that the

vehicle has been transporting beach sand illegally. The

petitioner states that a Mahazar was also prepared in

connection with the seizure. However, the 1 st

respondent has not reported the seizure to the higher

authorities. The petitioner states that the 1 st respondent

is bound to report the seizure to the 2 nd respondent, the

] failure of which disables the petitioner from seeking

interim custody of the vehicle.

3. The Government Pleader entered appearance

on behalf of the respondents and resisted the writ

petition. The Government Pleader denied all the

allegations made by the petitioner in the writ petition.

On instructions, the Government Pleader submitted

that a sample of sand recovered from the vehicle has

been forwarded for chemical examination.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner and the learned Government Pleader

representing the respondents.

5. The Government Pleader submits that the

seizure has already been reported to the Revenue

Divisional Officer, Kanjangad. In view of the above, the

petitioner can very well approach the 2 nd respondent

seeking interim custody of the vehicle.

] In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed

of permitting the petitioner to approach the 2 nd

respondent seeking interim custody of the vehicle. If

the petitioner makes such an application, the 2 nd

respondent shall consider the same and pass

appropriate orders within one month from the date of

receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE smm/10.08.2022

]

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22426/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit- P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE VEHICLE OF THE PETITIONER Exhibit- P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHASAR DATED 16.05.2022 PREPARED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT Exhibit- P3 THE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 19.03.2021 IN WPC NO 2815 OF 2021