Rijesh M.K. v. The District Collector
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/7TH PHALGUNA, 1936 WP(C).No.22713 of 2012 (L) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER:
------------------- RIJESH M.K,S/O.KUNHIRAMAN,AGED 31 YEARS, MANNUKANDI HOUSE,EDAKKARA.P.O.
THALAKALATHOOR,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
BY ADV.SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT'S:
------------------------ 1.
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,KOCHIKODE,PIN-673001.
2.
THE TAHSILDAR,KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,PIN-673305.
3.
THE VILLAGE OFFICER,THALAKALATHOOR VILLAGE, KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT,PIN-673312.
R1-R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.ANITHA RAVINDRAN.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
pk
W.P(C) NO.22713/2012 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXT.P1:TRUE COPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHAZAR PREPARED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 26.9.2012.
EXT.P2:TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 3.4.2009 IN W.P(C) NO.11206/2009 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.
EXT.P3:TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 7.12.2011 IN W.P(C) NO.31828/2011 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.
EXT.P4:TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED,3.6.2011 IN W.P(C) NO.15058/2011 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.
EXT.P5:TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 11.3.2011 IN W.P(C) NO.7689/2011 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:
NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE pk
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
======================== W.P.(C). No. 22713 of 2012 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of February, 2015
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner of the vehicle bearing Nos. KL11AE/253, which was seized by the 3rd respondent on 26.9.2012 alleging violation of the provisions of MMDR Act/KMMC Rules. This made the petitioner to approach this Court challenging the proceedings, mainly contending that the 3rd respondent does not have any power jurisdiction or competence to have seized the vehicles in any manner.
2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.
3. The authority of the respondent to effect seizure has already been considered by this Court and the power and competence has been upheld as per the decision reported in Aloshias C. Antony Vs. Government of Kerala [2014(1) KLT 536]. The said decision was rendered, also taking note of the nature of offence which is a 'cognizable' one (notwithstanding anything contained in the Cr.P.C) as stipulated in Section 21(6) of MMDR Act, 1957 and also placing reliance on the judgment
W.P.C. No. 22713 of 2012 -2rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Construction Materials Movers Association V. State of Kerala [2008 (4) KLT 909]. In the said circumstance, there is no tenable ground to call for interference.
4. When the matter came up for consideration on 28.09.2012, the vehicle was caused to be released, on execution of a simple bond. In the said circumstance, the further course of action required is to surrender the vehicle before the concerned respondent, so as to enable the said respondent to produce it before the concerned Magistrate having jurisdiction over the area and to proceed with steps for prosecution, unless the offence is sought to be compounded.
5. The petitioner express desire to compound the offence by virtue of the enabling provisions under the relevant provisions of law. This Court finds it fit and proper to permit the petitioner to have it compounded on satisfying the compounding fee of ₹ 25,000/-. Once the offence is compounded, no prosecution proceedings will lie in view of the law declared by this Court in Digil Vs. Sub Inspector of Police [2013(1) KLT 600]. It shall
W.P.C. No. 22713 of 2012 -3be reported to the concerned Magistrate, if the crime has already been reported. If there is any failure in compounding the offence, the concerned respondent shall pursue further steps in connection with the prosecution before the concerned Magistrate having jurisdiction over the area.
The writ petition is disposed of.
sd/- P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.
kp/-