Sharafudheen v. S I Of Police, Perinthalmanna Police Station

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/1ST PHALGUNA, 1936 WP(C).No. 5475 of 2015 (H) --------------------------- PETITIONER :

----------------------- SHARAFUDHEEN, S/O.ALI, AGED 35 YEARS, KUNNATHU HOUSE, THIRURKAD P.O., ANGADIPPURAM, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT (OWNER OF A TIPPER LORRY BEARING REGISTRATION NO. KL- 53- D- 5294).

BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ RESPONDENT :

---------------------------- THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN -672 303 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

sts

WP(C).No. 5475 of 2015 (H) ---------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- P1:

TRUE COPY OF THE MAHASAR DATED 29.01.2015 PREPARED BY THE RESPONDENT P2:

TRUE COPY OF THE CASH MEMORANDUM DATED 29.01.2015 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY AS PROVIDED UNDER THE KERALA MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION RULES 1967.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL ------------------------------------------ /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No.5475 of 2015 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 20 th day of February, 2015

JUDGMENT

The grievance of the petitioner is that lorry bearing No.KL 53-D-5294 belongs to the petitioner was wrongly seized by the respondent as per Ext.P1 Seizure Mahazar on 29.01.2015, alleging illegal transportation of granite building stones. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the materials were supported by Ext.P2 pass issued by the authorities in the Department of Geology in terms of the KMMC Rules.

2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. The facts and figures sought to be disputed by the learned Government Pleader points out that, as per the contents of Ext.P1 mahazar, no valid pass was therein at the time of interception.

3. In view of the disputed facts, the issue can be resolved only by causing further proceedings to be taken in accordance with law. If any offence has been committed by the petitioner, it is for the respondent to file necessary complaint before the

W.P.(C) No.5475 of 2015 concerned Magistrate's Court in respect of the offences involved. Necessary steps shall be taken in this regard and the vehicle shall be produced before the Magistrate having jurisdiction, at any rate, within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment, along with a copy of the writ petition, before the concerned authorities, for further steps.

With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE sj