Shijo v. Revenue Divisional Officer
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/18TH PHALGUNA, 1936 WP(C).No. 27859 of 2012 (F) PETITIONER(S):
----------------------- SHIJO, S/O.MATHAI, 2/192, THELAKKATTU HOUSE, OKKAL P.O., THANNIUZHA.
BY ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURIKAN RESPONDENT(S):
--------------------------
1. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OFTHE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA P.O., PIN - 686 673.
2. VILLAGE OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE VILLAGE OFFICE, IRAPURAM P.O, PIN - 686 689.
3. SUB INSPECTIOR OF POLICE, PATTIMATTOM POLICE STATION, PATTIMATTOM P.O, PIN - 683 562.
R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANITHA RAVINDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: AD/
WP(C).No. 27859 of 2012 (F) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION PERTAINING TO THE TIPPER LORRY BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL-07/J-2187 EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 19.11.2012.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE AD/
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
W.P.(C). No.27859 of 2012 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of March, 2015
JUDGMENT
The vehicle bearing No. KL-07/J-2187 was seized by the 2nd respondent alleging offence under the MMDR Act/KMMC Rules. The main ground of challenge is that, the 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 23.11.2012, 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
W.P.(C). No.27859 of 2012 respondent, so as to enable the concerned 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 it compounded on satisfying the compounding fee of 25,000/- ₹ within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 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 compounding the offence, the respondent shall pursue further steps to seize the vehicle and proceed with steps for prosecution.
The writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.
rkc