High Court of KeralaWP(C)/8208/2015disposed of

Shaiju v. The Revenue Divisional Officer Thirur

2015-03-25Honourable Mr.Justice P.R.Ramachandra Menon5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/4TH CHAITHRA, 1937 WP(C).No. 8208 of 2015 (A) --------------------------- PETITIONER:

------------------- SHAIJU, S/O.JOSE, AGED 30 YEARS, PATTATH HOUSE, CHATTIKULAM P.O., MALAPURAM, OWNER OF TIPPER BEARING NO. KL-42-B-2587.

BY ADV. SRI.S.SHAJAHAN (ADOOR) RESPONDENT(S):

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

1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THIRUR, MALAPURAM DISTRICT.

2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MARRANCHERRY, THIRUR.

R1 & R2 BY (SR) GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.C.VINCENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

vmr

WP(C).No. 8208 of 2015 (A) --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE SAID SEIZURE MAHAZAR DATED 11.3.2015 PREPARED BY THE RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 9.12.2014 ISSUED BY VATTAKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH.

EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE MINING AND GEOLOGY PERMIT DATED 6.3.2015 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT MALAPPURAM.

EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE P-FORM DATED 6.3.2015 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST, MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT MALAPPURAM.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

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

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

-------------------------------------------- W.P(C). No. 8208 of 2015 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of March, 2015

J U D G M E N T

Petitioner is the owner of the vehicle bearing Reg. No. KL42-B-2587, which was seized by the 2nd respondent alleging illegal transportation of 'Ordinary earth' in contravention of the relevant provisions of the 'MMDR Act, 1957'/'KMMC Rules. 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.

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, 2015 is entitled to have the offence compounded in view of the desire expressed from the part of the petitioner in this regard. 3.

Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 4.

Section 23A of the 'Act' and the relevant Rules enable the parties to have the offence compounded. The Rules

WP(c). No.8208 of 2015 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 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.

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 willingness expressed from the part of the petitioner to have the offence compounded, conceding the

WP(c). No.8208 of 2015 guilt, this Court finds it fit and proper to direct the 2nd respondent to compound the offence, if the petitioner files an application and satisfies a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards compounding fee. 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 2nd respondent for further steps. Sd/- P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.