Vinil P.V v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/5TH PHALGUNA, 1936 WP(C).No. 31809 of 2011 (A) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S) :

------------------------ P.V.VINIL, S/O.VASU, PULAYAMPATTU HOUSE, KANDANASSERY, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S) :

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

1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR, PIN-680 001.

2. THE ADDITIONAL SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, WADAKKANCHERY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 582. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANITHA RAVEENDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

Msd.

WP(C).No. 31809 of 2011 (A) ------------------------------------------ APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXT.P1:

TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 08-10-2011.

EXT.P2:

TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT ISSUED TO RATNAVALLI BY THE ERUMAPETTY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, DATED 02-07-2011.

EXT.P3:

TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 03-04-2009 IN W.P.(C).NO.11206/2009 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

EXT.P4:

TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED, 20-10-2010 IN W.P.(C).NO.32085/2010 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

EXT.P5:

TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED,03-06-2011 IN W.P.(C).NO.15058/2011 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

EXT.P6:

TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED,11-03-2011 IN W.P.(C).NO.7689/2011 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------------------------- NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

======================== W.P.(C). No. 31809 of 2011 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of February, 2015

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the owner of the JCB bearing No. KL03D/7884, which was seized by the 2nd respondent on 8.10.2011 alleging violation of the provisions of MMDR Act/KMMC Rules. This made the petitioner to approach this Court challenging the proceedings, mainly contending that the 2nd respondent does not have any power jurisdiction or competence to have seized the vehicle in any manner.

2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

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. 31809 of 2011 -2rendered 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 7.11.2011, 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 2nd respondent, so as to enable the said 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

W.P.C. No. 31809 of 2011 -3Court 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 2nd 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.

kp/-