High Court of KeralaWP(C)/28249/2013disposed of

Raju v. State Of Kerala

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH 2015/12TH PHALGUNA, 1936 WP(C).No. 28249 of 2013 (E) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

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

1. RAJU, S/O.VARGHESE, ALUMOOTTIL HOUSE, ERUMAKUZHY.P.O, NOORANADU, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA.

2. REMANAN, S/O.PRABHAKARAN, RESHMALAYAM, PALAMEL VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA.

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

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

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA-690101.

3. DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, ALAPPUZHA-690101.

4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NOORANADU-690529.

5. DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

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

mbr/

WP(C).No. 28249 of 2013 (E) --------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

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

TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE VEHICLE NO.KL-31 A-8019.

EXT.P2 :

TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR PREPARED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NOORANADU.

EXT.P3 :

TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.20553/K2/88/ID DATED 22.12.1998(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.28249 of 2013 ---------------------------------------- Dated, this the 3rd day of March, 2015

JUDGMENT

The vehicle bearing No. KL-31 A-8019 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 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.28249 of 2013 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 18.11.2013, 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 18.112013 shall be treated as compounding

W.P. (C) No.28249 of 2013 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 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 rkc