Allowed

Renuka Suresh v. District Collector

Kerala HC1 Jan 2014WP(C)/42/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala directed the respondent officers to consider applications for compounding of offences under the MMDR Act pending against petitioners involving seized vehicles, upon satisfaction of Rs. 25,000 each, holding that no further prosecution shall follow.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent to consider compounding applications on payment of Rs. 25,000 each; warned against further prosecution post-compounding.

Renuka Suresh Vs District Collector — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JANUARY 2014/11TH POUSHA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 42 of 2014 (E)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1. RENUKA SURESH, W/O. SURESH, AMBALAVILA VADAKKETHIL, CHUNNAKKARA.P.O., NADUVILE MURI, MAVELIKKARA.

¶8

2. SARASWATHY, W/O. DEVARAJAN, ARUN BHAVAN, THEKKEKKARA, MAVELIKKARA.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR,

¶10

SMT.A.SALINI LAL.

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA – 688 001.

¶13

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KURATHIKADU POLICE STATION, MAVELIKKARA – 690 101.

¶14

BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. JOSEPH GEORGE.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-01-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Prv.

¶17

W.P.(C).NO.42/2014-E:

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶20

EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE R.C. BOOK.

¶21

EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHAZAR.

¶22

EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE REPORT BEFORE THE R.1.

¶23

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

Prv.

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶28

¶29

W.P.(C)No.42 OF 2014

¶30

¶31

Dated this the 1^st day of January, 2014

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

The issue involved in these cases is, whether the petitioners

¶34

who have been proceeded against in respect of the offences under the Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 [MMDR Act] and the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967 [KMMC Rules] are entitled to have the offence compounded in view of the desire expressed from their side in this regard.

¶35

The grievance of the petitioners is that vehicles belonging to them bearing Nos. KL-13 U 5808, KL 40 B 7950 and KL-16 E 892 were seized by the second respondent, alleging violation of the provisions under the MMDR Act. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners have already filed applications for compounding before the second respondent and the prayer is only to cause the same to be considered and finalised within a reasonable time.

¶36

Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

¶37

Section 23A of the Act and Rule 60A of the Rules enable the

¶38

parties to have the offence compounded. The question whether the

¶39

W.P.(C)No.42/2014

¶40

¶41

prosecution proceedings could be pursued further, once the offence is compounded in accordance with the relevant provisions of the MMDR Act has already been considered and decided by this Court in 2013 (1) KLT 600 ( Digil v. Sub Inspector of Police) , holding that, once the offence is compounded, there cannot be any further prosecution proceedings. The directions given as per the above verdict are extracted below :

¶42

“i) In cases where compounding applications have been acted upon as per the interim orders passed by this Court and the offences have been compounded and compounding fees have been collected and vehicles have been released, it is declared that no further proceedings can be taken for confiscation of the vehicles;

¶43

ii) In cases where complaints have been filed before the Court but compounding applications have been entertained and offences have been compounded, appropriate applications will be filed before the Courts and the concerned Courts will pass appropriate orders in the matter with regard to the closure of the cases pending;

¶44

iii) In cases where compounding applications are yet to be filed by the parties concerned, it is open to them to file applications which will be dealt with by the officer concerned in accordance with law and they will be free to pass appropriate orders on it. If no applications are filed within a period of three weeks from today and if compounding is not

¶45

W.P.(C)No.42/2014

¶46

¶47

being allowed, it is open to the concerned officers to complete the procedures as enjoined by law.”

¶48

After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the petitioners are also entitled to have similar relief.

¶49

Coming to the extent of amount to be satisfied as compounding fee, the Rules specifically stipulate that any offence under the Rules can be compounded subject to the satisfaction of the maximum fine prescribed under the Rules, which is stated as Rs. 5,000/-. But in respect of the transportation of sand/earth without any valid pass/sanction, it is stated as an offence under the 'Act' itself by virtue of the incorporation of Section 4(1A), for which separate penalty is provided under the Act itself. The maximum fine in respect of such offence prescribed under the Act is stated as Rs. 25,000/ -. It was in the said circumstance, that this Court was passing various orders enabling the concerned petitioners to have interim custody of the vehicle on satisfaction of a sum of Rs. 25,000/-, also directing the concerned respondent to consider the application for compounding, if any.

¶50

In view of the willingness expressed from the part of the petitioners to have the offence compounded, conceding the guilt, this Court finds it fit and proper to direct the third respondent to consider

¶51

W.P.(C)No.42/2014

¶52

¶53

the applications stated as filed by the petitioners for compounding the offence and pass appropriate orders, if the petitioners satisfy a sum of Rs. 25,000/- ( Rupees Twenty Five thousand) each . It is ordered accordingly. It is made clear that once the offence alleged against the petitioners is compounded, no prosecution proceedings shall be pursued against them.

¶54

The Writ Petitions are disposed of.

¶55

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE

¶56

sv.

Renuka Suresh v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Renuka Suresh v. District Collector

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

K.B. Hameed Vs Commercial Tax Officer

Kuriakose Vs the Rdo

Shibukumar Vs the Chief Secretary

Sivarajan.K Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Sri.K.P.Vijayakumar Vs M/S.Kerala Automobile Ltd.

Vipindas Vs Central Board of Secondary Education