High Court of KeralaWP(C)/2595/2015disposed of

Shafeeq v. The District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram

2015-01-30Honourable Mr.Justice P.R.Ramachandra Menon6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/10TH MAGHA, 1936 WP(C).No. 2595 of 2015 (Y) --------------------------- PETITIONER:

------------------- SHAFEEQ, S/O.

VADAKKEKONATH VILAYIL VEEDU, PULLAMPARA, TRIVANDRUM.

BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SARIN RESPONDENT(S):

--------------------------

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KUDAPPANAKKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN CODE:695 001.

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VENJARAMOODU POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

mbr/

WP(C).No. 2595 of 2015 (Y) ------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

------------------------------------- P1TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF THE VEHICLE REGISTRATION NO.JCB KL 21 A 2587.

P2TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF THE VEHICLE REGISTRATION NO.TIPPER LORRY KL 21 8054.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

- NIL --------------------------------------- /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE mbr/

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

======================== W.P.(C). No. 2595 of 2015 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of January, 2015

JUDGMENT

Petitioner is the owner of the JCB KL21 2587 Excavator and a Tipper lorry KL21 8054, which were seized by the 2nd respondent alleging illegal transportation of 'Ordinary earth', in contravention of the relevant provisions of the 'MMDR Act, 1957'/'KMMC Rules, 1967. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would like to have the offence compounded and that the above mentioned vehicles might be caused to be released after accepting the compounding fee.

2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who submits that, no valid supporting document was there and that the offence involved is under the MMDR Act/ KMMC Rules. No offence under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 or 'Sand Act' is stated as involved.

3. Section 23A of the 'MMDR Act' and Rule 60A of the 'KMMC Rules' enable the party to have the offence compounded. The question whether prosecution proceedings could be pursued further, once the offence is compounded in

accordance with the relevant provisions of the MMDR Act/Rules has already been considered and decided by this Court in 2013 (1) KLT 600 ( Digil v. Sub Inspector of Police), holding that, once the offence is compounded, there cannot be any further prosecution proceedings. The directions given as per the above verdict are extracted below :

"i) In cases where compounding applications have been acted upon as per the interim orders passed by this Court and the offences have been compounded and compounding fees have been collected and vehicles have been released, it is declared that no further proceedings can be taken for confiscation of the vehicles;

ii) In cases where complaints have been filed before the Court but compounding applications have been entertained and offences have been compounded, appropriate applications will be filed before the Courts and the concerned Courts will pass appropriate orders in the matter with regard to the closure of the cases pending; iii) In cases where compounding applications are yet to be filed by the parties concerned, it is open to them to file applications which will be dealt with by the officer concerned in accordance with law and they will be free to pass appropriate orders on it. If no applications are filed within a period of three weeks from today and if compounding is not being allowed, it is open to the concerned officers to complete the procedures as enjoined by law."

After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the petitioner is also entitled to have similar relief.

4. Coming to the extent of amount to be satisfied as

compounding fee, the Rules specifically stipulate that any offence under the Rules can be compounded subject to the satisfaction of the maximum fine prescribed under the Rules, which is stated as Rs.5,000/-. But in respect of the transportation of sand/earth without any valid pass/sanction, it is stated as an offence under the 'Act' itself by virtue of the incorporation of Section 4(1A), for which separate penalty is provided under the Act itself. The maximum fine in respect of such offence prescribed under the Act is stated as Rs. 25,000/-. It was in the said circumstance, that this Court has passed orders enabling the parties to have interim custody of the vehicle, on satisfaction of a sum of Rs.25,000/-, also directing the concerned respondent to consider the application for compounding, if any.

5. In view of the willingness expressed from the part of the petitioner to have the offence compounded, conceding the guilt, this Court finds it fit and proper to direct the 2nd respondent to compound the offence, if the petitioner satisfies a sum of Rs. 25,000/-.in respect of each vehicle. It is ordered accordingly. On satisfaction of the compounding fee, the vehicles shall be released to the petitioner forthwith. It is made

clear that once the offence alleged against the petitioner is compounded, no prosecution proceedings shall be pursued against him.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the second respondent for further steps. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

smm