1. Petitioner is the owner of a lorry bearing Registration No.KL-14-J-137, which was seized by the first respondent on 29.01.2015, alleging illegal transportation of river sand.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that, river sand was being transported in the vehicle, on the strength of a valid pass issued by the concerned authority and the factual position is discernible from Ext.P1 Mahazar itself. It is in the said circumstances that, the seizure is stated as illegal and arbitrary and hence the challenge.

3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who points out that the time of departure mentioned in the pass was at 8 am, whereas the seizure was effected just 20Kms. Away from the concerned Kadavu at about 12.30 pm and that there is a delay of 4½ hours, which was never explained. There is absolutely no reason or explanation for the delay in the writ petition as well, and there was every reason for the Police to doubt the transaction that the petitioner was engaged in multiple transactions/transportations on the strength of the very same pass. The learned Government Pleader further submits that, a crime has already been registered and the seizure has been reported to the concerned Judicial Magistrate having jurisdiction over the area, besides reporting the matter to the 2nd respondent.

4. 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 2nd respondent and there cannot be any dispute in this regard. 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.”

5. Later, an issue came up for consideration before this Court, as to whether prosecution proceedings are mandatorily to be pursued in cases involving offences under the Kerala P