High Court of KeralaWP(C)/3146/2015disposed of

Saju K.T v. The District Collector

2015-01-305 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. 3146 of 2015 (P) --------------------------- PETITIONER :

-------------------- SAJU K.T., AGED 53 YEARS S/O.K.T.THOMAS, KEEDARATHIL VEEDU, PARAMPUZHA MURI MANARKADU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

BY ADV. SRI.AJITH MURALI RESPONDENT(S) :

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

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686001

2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER MANARKADU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686001

3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE MANARKADU POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686001

4. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DCRB, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686001 R1 TO R4 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. VINCENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

Mn ...2/-

WP(C).No. 3146 of 2015 (P) -------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :

------------------------------------- EXT. P1THE TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZER PREPARED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 29.1.2015.

EXT. P2- PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 29.1.2015 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL -------------------------------------------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

.............................................................................. ......................................................................... Dated this the 30th January, 2015

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is the owner of the vehicle bearing No.KL.50A/5531. The above vehicle has been seized by the fourth respondent/Dy.Superintendent of Police alleging violation of Rule 48K of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to compound the offence.

2. The issue involved in this case is, whether the petitioner, who has been proceeded against in respect of the offences under the Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation ) Act, 1957 and the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967 is entitled to have the offence compounded in view of the desire expressed from his side in this regard.

Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 4.

Section 23A of the 'Act' and Rule 60A of the Rules enable the party to have the offence compounded. 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 been passing various orders in similar matters enabling the concerned parties to have the interim custody of the vehicle released on satisfaction of a sum of Rs.25,000/- and also by directing the concerned respondent to consider the application for compounding, if any.

A question arose before this Court as to whether the prosecution proceedings could be pursued further, once the offence is compounded in accordance with the relevant provisions. This issue 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.

6. In view of the law declared as mentioned herein before, there will be a direction to the concerned respondent/third

respondent/Sub Inspector to accept the application filed by the petitioner to compound the offence; which shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed forthwith, subject to satisfaction of a sum of Rs.25000/- as the compounding fee. Once the offence is compounded, no prosecution proceedings shall lie against the petitioner. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the concerned respondent for further steps.

The writ petition is disposed of.

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE lk