High Court of KeralaWP(C)/25412/2013disposed of

Shajahan v. The Chief Secretary

2015-02-27Honourable Mr.Justice P.R.Ramachandra Menon5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/8TH PHALGUNA, 1936 WP(C).No. 25412 of 2013 (B) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

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

1. SHAJAHAN.R, S/O.RASAVAKUTTY RAWTHER, AGED 39 YEARS, PRAVILA THEKKETHIL, ADIKKATTUKULANGARA, NOORANAD VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

2. VIJESH, S/O.VIJAYAN, AGED 24 YEARS, VIJAYA BHAVANAM, MATTAPPALLY, ULAVAKKAD, PALAMEL VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

BY ADV. SMT.ANITHA M.N. (EKM) RESPONDENT(S):

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

1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 645.

3. DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 645.

4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ADOOR POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 603.

5. DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 001 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED SHAFI.M. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

sts

WP(C).No. 25412 of 2013 (B) ------------------------------------------ APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXT.P1:

A TRUE COPY OF THE R.C PARTICULARS OF THE VEHICLE KL-36-B-595.

EXT.P2:

A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DTD. 10/10/2013 EXT.P3:

A TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED ON 26/06/91. EXT.P4:

A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO.18207/2013 DATED 22/07/2013.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

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

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

--------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of February, 2015

JUDGMENT

The vehicle bearing No.KL-36-B-595was 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 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 ground to call for interference.

4. When the matter came up for consideration on 18.10.2013, the vehicle was 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 concerned respondent, so as to enable the 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 expresses 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 the offence compounded on satisfying the compounding fee of Rs.25,000/-. The amount ordered to be paid as per the interim order dated 18.10.2013 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 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 sp