High Court of KeralaWP(C)/6354/2015disposed of

Pathoor Shanavas v. The Revenue Divisional Officer ,Tirur

2015-02-27Honourable 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 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/8TH PHALGUNA, 1936 WP(C).No. 6354 of 2015 (T) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

---------------------- PATHOOR SHANAVAS, S/O.MOHAMMED, PATHOOR HOUSE, AGED 35 YEARS, CHUDALAPPARA, P.O.MALAPURAM OWNER OF TIPPER BEARING NO.KL-55-F-5675. BY ADV. SRI.S.SHAJAHAN (ADOOR) RESPONDENT(S):

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

1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER , TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676101

2. THE DEPUTY THASILDAR, TIRUR - 676 101.

3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUR - 676 101. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.C.VINCENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 6354 of 2015 (T) -------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1:

TRUE COPY OF THE SAID SEIZURE MAHAZAR DATED 04/02/2015 PREPARED BY THE RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P2:

THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPOUNDING APPLICATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- NIL.

/ TRUE COPY / P.S. TO JUDGE PJ

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

--------------------------------- ------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of February, 2015.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner is the owner of the vehicle bearing Reg. No. KL-55-F-5675, which was seized by the 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 vehicle 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 the relevant Rules' enable the party to have the offence compounded. The

-2question 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

-3and 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.

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' by virtue of the incorporation of Section 4(1A), for which separate penalty is provided under the 'Act' itself. It was in the said circumstance, that this Court has been passing 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.

In view of the willingness expressed from the part

-4of the petitioner to have the offence compounded, conceding the guilt, this Court finds it fit and proper to direct the respondent to compound the offence, if the petitioner satisfies a sum of Rs. 25,000/-. It is ordered accordingly. On satisfaction of the compounding fee, the vehicle 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 concerned respondent for further steps. Sd/- P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE Scl.