High Court of KeralaWP(C)/8640/2015disposed of

Murshid K.P. v. The District Collector, Malappuram

2015-03-18Honourable 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 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/27TH PHALGUNA, 1936 WP(C).No. 8640 of 2015 (D) --------------------------- PETITIONER:

------------------- MURSHID K.P., AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMAD HAJI, DURAL SANAN HOUSE, KAVANOOR MURI, KAVANOOR VILLAGE, ERANADU TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

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

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

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 505.

2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ERANADU TALUK, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 505.

3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ARREKODU VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 505.

4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ARREKODU POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 505.

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.C.VINCENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

mbr/

WP(C).No. 8640 of 2015 (D) ------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

------------------------------------ EXHIBIT P1 :

THE TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZER PREPARED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 15.3.2015.

EXHIBIT P2 :

THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT PREPARED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 15.3.2015.

EXHIBIT P3 :

PHOTO COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 16.3.2015.

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

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

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

======================== W.P.(C). No. 8640 of 2015 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of March, 2015

JUDGMENT

Petitioner is the owner of the vehicle bearing Reg. No. KL10-AN-4409, which was seized by the 3rd respondent/Village Officer alleging illegal transportation of 'Ordinary earth' in contravention of the relevant provisions of the 'MMDR Act, 1957'/'KMMC Rules. Later, it was handed over to the 4th respondent/S.I. of Police and now the vehicle is kept in the premises of 3rd respondent's office. 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. Ext.P3 is the application submitted in this regard.

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

W.P.C. No. 8640 of 2015 -23. 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 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.

5. 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

W.P.C. No. 8640 of 2015 -3Police), 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 guilt, this Court finds it fit and proper to direct the 4th 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 concerned respondent for further steps. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

kp/-