IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 1329 of 2010()
1. VENUGOPALA KURUP,S/O.PARAMESWARAN PILLAI
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,ALAPPUZHA.
... Respondent
2. THE TAHSILDAR,CHENGANNUR.
3. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE
For Petitioner :SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.J.CHELAMESWAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :07/10/2010
O R D E R
J. CHELAMESWAR, C.J. &
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.A. Nos. 1329 and 1331 of 2010
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated, this the 7thday of October, 2010
JUDGMENT
J. Chelameswar, C.J.
In these two appeals, there is a common question. Therefore
we take the facts of W.A. No. 1329 of 2010 to represent the facts of
two Writ Appeals.
2. The appellant, claims to be the owner of the vehicle bearing
No. KL30 A 1244. The said vehicle was seized by the respondents
on the ground that the vehicle was found violating the provisions of
the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of
Sand Act, 2001. By order dated 7.6.2010 of the first respondent, the
vehicle was confiscated. Such confiscation is provided under
Section 23 of the Act, which reads as follows:
23. Confiscation of Vehicles : Whoever transports sand
without complying with the provisions of this Act shall be
liable to be punished and the vehicle used for the
transaction is liable for seizure by the Police or Revenue
Officials.
However, Rule 27 (3) of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and
W.A. Nos. 1329 &1331 of 2010
: 2 :
Regulation of Removal of Sand Rules, 2002 framed under the above
mentioned Act provide that the vehicle confiscated may be returned
either to the owner or to the possessor on remitting an amount equal
to the price of the vehicle determined by the District Collector along
with fine. Therefore, by order dated 7.6.2010, the first respondent
directed that the vehicle in question be returned to the owner on
condition that the owner deposits an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs.
Aggrieved by the said decision, the appellant herein approached this
Court, which was dismissed by the judgment dated 8.7.2010, which
is under challenge in this appeal.
3. The only submission made by the learned counsel for the
appellants that the order of confiscation came to be passed without
giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellants.
4. Admittedly, the drivers of the respective vehicles were
served with notice of the confiscation proceedings. The appellants
do not dispute the fact that the vehicles were entrusted to the
drivers. In such a case drivers become the agents of the appellants.
Rule 27 (2) stipulates that a copy of the seizure mahazar shall be
given to the person possessing the vehicle at the time of the seizure.
Obviously, the person who is in possession of the vehicle is treated
W.A. Nos. 1329 &1331 of 2010
: 3 :
to be the agent of the owner of the vehicle under the law and the
legislature thought that the notice on the agent is sufficient to comply
with the requirement of the rule of audi alteram partem. We have
no reason to take a different view. In the said circumstances, we
are of the opinion that, there is no reason to interfere with the
impugned judgments. Both the Writ Appeals, therefore, dismissed
in the admission stage.
J. CHELAMESWAR, CHIEF JUSTICE
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE
kmd