Disposed

M.D. Sattar S/O Md. Nissar Ahmed v. State of Karnataka through Its and Ors.

Karnataka HC15 Feb 2013WP/100007/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed challenging criminal proceedings for transporting a minor mineral. Court held that main case is bad in law under IPC as provisions of MMDR Act apply. Since proceedings initiated under MMDR Act alone, incidental allegations against vehicle quashed; petition disposed of reserving liberty for fresh action if warranted.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of incidental allegations against the vehicle involved in the transport of a minor mineral; petition disposed of with liberty for fresh action.

M.D. Sattar S/O Md. Nissar Ahmed Vs State of… — Mining and Natural Resources | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2013

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.100007/2013 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

M.D.Sattar S/o Md.Nissar Ahmed, Age: 42 Years, Occ: Business, R/o: # 1/T-38, Bhag Nam 17 A, Village Kamthana, Taluk and District Bidar.

¶9

… PETITIONER

¶10

(By Shri. J.K.Bukka, Advocate)

¶11

AND:

¶12

State of Karnataka through its Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore-560 001.

¶13

State of Karnataka through its Principal Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore-560 001.

¶14

¶15

The Department Commissioner of Yadgir District, Yadgir-585 244.

¶16

The Superintendent of Police Yadgir District, Yadgir-585 244.

¶17

The Senior Geologist of Department of Mines and Geology, Yadgir District, Yadgir-585 244.

¶18

The Sub Inspector of Police Police Station Shahapur, Taluk Shahapur, District Yadgir-585 201. … RESPONDENTS

¶19

(By Shri Sanjay.A.Patil, Additional State Public Prosecutor)

¶20

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 3^rd and 5^th respondent for consider the memorandum of application of the petitioner dated 2.01.2013 for releasing the vehicle/Lorry bearing No.KA-38-7118 in favour of the petitioner vide Annexure-J and J1 respectively.

¶21

This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the Court made the following:

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The present petitioner is said to be the owner of a Transport vehicle involved in the transport of a Minor Mineral.

¶24

¶25

The case having been instituted against the present petitioner for transporting the Mineral in the vehicle involved, having approached this court claiming that the case registered under the provisions of Indian Penal Code, 1860, (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’, for brevity) would not be tenable in respect of an offence alleging violation of the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘MMDR Act’, for brevity). Since the proceedings ought to be initiated under the said MMDR Act, which is the consistent view taken by this court as in the case of Criminal Petition No.7839/2012, which was allowed by an order dated 01.02.2013. Accordingly, any incidental allegations against the vehicle involved would also be quashed.

¶26

The present petitioner claiming as the owner of the vehicle involved has already obtained custody of the vehicle and seeks quashing of the proceedings against him, in that case since the main case has been held bad in law and the incidental

¶27

¶28

allegations the petitioner would also not survive for consideration. In any event permission was granted to the authorities to initiate fresh action. If the vehicle was enlarged in which event it is quite possible that fresh proceedings would be initiated against the petitioner. Therefore, the present petitioner seeking to question the pending Criminal Proceedings is infructous as the said criminal proceedings have been set at naught by virtue of the order passed in the aforesaid Criminal Petition. Hence, nothing survives for consideration, the petitioner would have the benefit of the order passed in Criminal Petition No.7839/2012. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of while reserving liberty to the authorities to initiate such fresh action as may be available in law.

¶29

Sd/JUDGE

¶30

msr

M.D. Sattar S/O Md. Nissar Ahmed v. State of Karnataka through Its and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.D. Sattar S/O Md. Nissar Ahmed v. State of Karnataka through Its and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhaskar S/O Peerappa Vs the State through Dhannur Police Station

Nagesh S/O Yasavant Gayakwad and Anr. Vs the State of Karnataka

Mainu @ Mainuddin S/O Mohd. Usman Guttedar Vs the State through Grameen Ps Gulbarga

Vilas S/O Baburao More Vs the State through Hulsoor

Rajashekhar S/O Mallanna Handroli Vs the State of Karnataka through Ratakal

Virupakshi @ Virupakshi S/O Sharanappa Vs the State of Karnataka through Sadar Bazar Police