High Court of KeralaWP(C)/10170/2015disposed of

Ratheesh v. The Village Officer

2015-03-30Honourable Mr.Justice P.R.Ramachandra Menon5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/9TH CHAITHRA, 1937 WP(C).No. 10170 of 2015 (U) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S) :

-------------------------- 1.

RATHEESH S/O. BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 32 YEARS MUTHIRANPARAMBATH, PERUMBILAVU VILLAGE THALAPPALLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT (OWNER OF LORRY BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL-52-B-9318) 2.

RAJESH S/O. KRISHNA RAJAN, AGED 22 YEARS ERUMENI HOUSE, KARIMBA VILLAGE MANNARKADU TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT (OWNER OF JCB BEARING REGISTRATION NO. KL-48-B-5088). BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ RESPONDENT :

------------------------ THE VILLAGE OFFICER NELLUVAI - KARIYANOOR THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 001.

BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. VINCENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

Mn ...2/-

WP(C).No. 10170 of 2015 (U) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE MAHAZAR DATED 26.3.2015 PREPARED BY THE RESPONDENT IN CONNECTION WITH SEIZURE OF VEHICLES. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 30 th day of March, 2015

JUDGMENT

The first petitioner is the owner of the lorry bearing Reg.No.KL-52-B-9318 and second petitioner is the owner of JCB bearing Reg. No. KL-48-B-5088, which were seized by the 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 petitioners submits that the petitioners would like to have the offence compounded and that the above mentioned vehicles might be caused to be released after accepting the compounding fee.

2. The issue involved in this case is, whether the petitioners, who have 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 are entitled to have the offence compounded in view of the desire expressed from the part of the petitioners 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 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

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 petitioners to have the offence compounded, conceding the guilt, this Court finds it fit and proper to direct the 1st respondent to compound the offence, if the petitioners file an application and satisfy a sum of Rs. 25,000/- in respect of each vehicle towards compounding fee. It is ordered accordingly. On satisfaction of the compounding fee, the vehicles shall be released to the petitioners forthwith. It is made clear that once the offence alleged against the petitioners is compounded, no prosecution proceedings shall be pursued against them.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. The petitioners shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the respondent for further steps. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE sj