High Court of KeralaWP(C)/24969/2013disposed of

Ratheesh Kumar v. Govt. Of Kerala By The Chief Secretary

2015-03-02Honourable 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 2ND DAY OF MARCH 2015/11TH PHALGUNA, 1936 WP(C).No. 24969 of 2013 (U) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

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

1. RATHEESH KUMAR, S/O.SURENDRAN, KONATHUTHEKKETHIL HOUSE, PALAMEL VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA.

2. PRADEEP KUMAR, S/O.SUBHRAMANYAN, MULAMOOTTIL KIZHAKKETHIL HOUSE, ERUMAKKUZHY, PALAMEL, MAVELIKKARA.

BY ADV. SRI.UNNI. K.K. (EZHUMATTOOR) RESPONDENT(S):

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

1. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001, REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY.

2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 545.

3. DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 545.

4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ADOOR - 689 504.

5. DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANITHA RAVINDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

mbr/

WP(C).No. 24969 of 2013 (U) ---------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

------------------------------------- EXT.P1:

TRUE COPY OF THE AUTHORIZATION LETTER WITH REGARD TO THE VEHICLE NO KL-3 T 8454.

EXT.P2:

TRUE COPY OF THE FIR PREPARED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ADOOR.

EXT.P3:

TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO 20553/K2/88/ID DATED 22-12-1988 (SRO 139/89 DATED 24-1-1989). EXT.P4:

TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED UNDER SRO 827/91 PUBLISHED ON 26-06-1991.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

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

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

========================= W.P.(C) No.24969 of 2013 ============================ Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2015

JUDGMENT

The vehicle bearing Registration No.KL-3-T-8454 was seized by the 4th respondent alleging offence under the Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act and the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules. The main ground of challenge is that, the 4th respondent is not having the jurisdiction or authority to effect seizure.

2. Heard both the sides.

3. The authority of the 4th 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 rendered 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

W.P(C) No.24969 of 2013 ground to call for interference.

4. When the matter came up for consideration on 11.10.2013, the vehicle caused to be released, on satisfaction of a sum Rs.25,000/- and on execution of a simple bond. In the said circumstance, the further course of action required is to surrender the vehicle before the 4th respondent, so as to enable the 4th 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 petitioners 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 petitioners to have the offence compounded on satisfying the compounding fee of Rs.25,000/-. The amount ordered to be paid as per the interim order dated 11.10.2013 shall be treated as compounding fee and offence shall be treated as compounded. 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 be reported to the concerned Magistrate, if the crime has already been reported. If there is any failure in satisfying the compounding fee, the

W.P(C) No.24969 of 2013 4th 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 vdv