Noushad v. The Deputy Thahasildar (Inspection), Ottappalam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/19TH PHALGUNA, 1936 WP(C).No.28736 of 2014 (N) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER:
------------------- NOUSHAD,S/O.ENTHEENKUTTY,AGED 29 YEARS, PATHAYAPURAKKAL,THANNEERKODE P.O.
CHALISSERY VILLAGE,PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT (OWNER OF LORRIES REGISTRATION NO.KL-10-X-3693 KL-10-AD-468 AND A JCB BEARING REGISTRATION NOLKL-5-W-8653) BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ RESPONDENT:
---------------------- THE DEPUTY THAHASILDAR (INSPECTION), TALUK OFFICE,OTTAPPALAM,PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-679303.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.MUHAMMED SHAFI.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
pk
WP(C).No.28736 of 2014 (N) --------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
------------------------------------ EXT.P1:TRUE COPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHAZAR DATED 28.10.2014 PREPARED BY THE RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:
NIL --------------------------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE pk
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.
--------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.28736 of 2014 ---------------------------------------- Dated, this the 10th day of March, 2015
JUDGMENT
The vehicles bearing Nos.KL-10-X-3693, KL-10-AD-468 & KL-5-W-8653 were seized by the 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 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
W.P.(C) No.28736 of 2014 : 2 :
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 31.10.2014, the vehicle was caused to be released, on satisfaction of a sum Rs.25,000/-. In the said circumstance, the further course of action required is to surrender the vehicle before the 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 31.10.2014 shall be treated as compounding fee and offence shall be treated as compounded. Once the offence is compounded, no prosecution
W.P.(C) No.28736 of 2014 : 3 :
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