Ramadas v. The Village Officer, Peringottukurussi Village , Palakkad District

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/13TH PHALGUNA, 1936 WP(C).No.28800 of 2014 (Y) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER:

-------------------- RAMADAS,S/O.MADHAVAN,AGED 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT ATHANIPPARAMBU,MANKURUSSI (P.O), MNAGARA,PALAKKAD DISTRICT (OWNER OF A LORRY BEARING REGISTRATION NO KL 07 BG 8442) BY ADVS.SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ SRI.A.M.ABDULLA SRI.O.M.SAJAYAN SRI.K.S.DHANESH KUMAR SRI.K.S.SREENATH SMT.RESHMA P.JOSEPH SMT.SUBI K.

SRI.P.MOHAMED SABAH SRI.C.PAULOSE RESPONDENT:

---------------------- THE VILLAGE OFFICER,PERINGOTTUKURUSSI VILLAGE , PALAKKAD DISTRICT BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.M.MUHAMMED SHAFI.

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

pk

WP(C).No.28800 of 2014 (Y) -------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

------------------------------------ EXHIBIT P1:TRUE COPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHAZAR DATED 29-10-2014 PREPARED BY THE RESPONDENT RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

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

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

.............................................................................. ......................................................................... Dated this the 4th March, 2014

J U D G M E N T

The vehicle bearing No. KL.07.BG/8442 was seized by the respondent/Village Officer on 29.10.2014 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 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 execution of a simple bond. 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 it compounded on satisfying the compounding fee of Rs.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.

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE lk