Judicial mandates require timely adjudication in administrative seizure cases to ensure fairness and compliance with statutory obligations.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the owner of a motor vehicle bearing Registration No.KL-06-A-7977. The said motor vehicle was seized by the first respondent on 13.3.2014 on the allegation that it was used to transport river sand without a valid pass. It is contended that though immediately after seizure Ext.P1 mahazar was prepared and it is stated therein that river sand was being carried in the petitioner's motor vehicle, it was actually not carrying river sand but only ordinary sand. The writ petition proceeds to state that though the petitioner has filed Ext.P3 representation before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thirur requesting him to have the sample of sand analysed, till date the sample has not been analysed. In this writ petition the petitioner prays for an order directing the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thirur to dispose of Ext.P3 representation and to complete the final adjudication within a time limit to be fixed by this Court.

2. A Full Bench of this Court has inShan C.T. v. State of Kerala [ 2010 (3) KLT 413 ] directed that proceedings initiated under section 23 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 should be concluded within six weeks from the date of seizure of the vehicle. The Full Bench also directed that if for any reason it is not possible to conclude the proceedings within the said period of six weeks, interim custody of the motor vehicle shall be given to the owner on the conditions stipulated in paragraph 12 of the judgment. Later, the was amended and the power of adjudication was conferred on the Revenue Divisional Officer who is also empowered to grant interim custody of the motor vehicles seized under the Act. In the light of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court, I am of the opinion that the second respondent should conclude the proceedings initiated against the petitioner's motor vehicle within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after getting the sample of sand carried in the petitioner's motor vehicle analysed and after affording him an opportunity of being heard. If after such testing, it is found that the sand carried is not river sand but ordinary sand and the offence if any made out is under the provisions contained in the Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Act, 1957 or the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967 , the second respondent should afford the petitioner an opportunity to compound the offence if he so desires.

I accordingly dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thirur to conclude the proceedings initiated against the petitioner within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after getting the sample of sand carried in the petitioner's vehicle analysed and after affording him an opportunity of being heard. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thirur shall in the event of, the petitioner moving him for interim custody, grant interim custody of the motor vehicle having regard to the stipulations in paragraph 12 of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court inShan C.T. v. State of Kerala [ 2010 (3) KLT 413 ]. Needless to say if after the sand carried in the petitioner's vehicles is analysed it is found that the sand carried in the motor vehicle at the time of seizure was not river sand but ordinary sand and the offence if any made out is under the provisions contained in the Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Act, 1957 or the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967 , the competent authority under Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Act and the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules shall afford the petitioner an opportunity to compound the offence, if he so desires.