Partly allowed

Jayaprakash v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Feb 2015WP(C)/12307/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the illegal seizure of a lorry under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967. The court held the writ petition should be disposed of by permitting the petitioner to compound the offences upon deposit of a fine and reporting to the concerned Magistrate's Court to drop proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to compound the offences; direct to submit compounding petition within one month and deposit fine for appropriation towards fine.

Jayaprakash Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/30TH MAGHA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).NO. 12307 OF 2014 (K)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

JAYAPRAKASH, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.KUNJUKUNJU, THOTTATHIL HOSUE, KURICHY, CHANGANACHERRY.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.SEBIN THOMAS

¶9

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶11

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM-686 001.

¶12

3. THE TAHASILDAR, KOTTAYAM-686 001.

¶13

4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, WEST VAZHAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT- 686 103.

¶14

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.NOUSHAD THOTTATHIL

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Msd.

¶17

WP(C).No. 12307 of 2014 (K)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF VEHICLE BEARING REG.NO.KL-28-3072.

¶21

EXHIBTI P2: TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR DATED 03.05.2014 PREPARED BY VILLAGBE OFFICER, WEST VAZHAPPALLY.

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J

¶28

WPC No.12307 of 2014

¶29

Dated this the 19^th day of February, 2015

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

The petitioner is the registered owner of a Tipper Lorry bearing Reg.No.KL-28-3072, which was seized by the fourth respondent on 3.5.2014 under the provisions of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967 on the allegation that the vehicle was used for unauthorized transportation of building waste and red earth. The petitioner alleges that as per the provisions of the Act and Rules, it is not possible to seize the vehicle transporting building waste and there was no direction from the District Collector to seize the vehicle. As per the decision of the Apex Court in ( Threesiamma Jacob v Geologist, Department of Mining ) 2013(9) SCC 725, the right over the soil/sub soil is with the owner of the property and the Government has no authority to interfere in the same and there is no law enabling the Government to take the right of sub soil in the property of private person; it is alleged.

¶32

WPC No.12307/2014 2

¶33

Therefore, according to the petitioner, the seizure of the vehicle by the fourth respondent is illegal and beyond his jurisdiction. It is with this background, the petitioner has come up before this Court.

¶34

This Court, by interim order dated 13.5.2014, ordered release of the vehicle to the petitioner on satisfaction of a sum of 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five₹ thousand only) before the authority concerned subject to further orders in this writ petition and also made clear that in case the vehicle in question had been involved in a similar offence on any earlier occasion and was released with similar conditions, then the petitioner would not be entitled to get the vehicle released under the above mentioned order.

¶35

This Court is of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of permitting the petitioner to compound the offences. If the petitioner is ready to compound the offences, he shall file a compounding petition within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In the event of filing the compounding

¶36

WPC No.12307/2014 3

¶37

petition, the respondents shall appropriate the amount ordered to be deposited by the petitioner towards fine. After compounding the offences, the respondents shall report the fact to the Magistrate's Court concerned so that further proceedings could be dropped.

¶38

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶39

Sd/- A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE

¶40

css/ true copy

¶41

P.S.TO JUDGE

Jayaprakash v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayaprakash v. State of Kerala

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

Saraswathy Amma Vs Tahsildar

Aji Vs the State of Kerala

Krishnan Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Sakeer Vs the District Collctor

G.Murukadas Vs Kerala State Backward Classes Development Corporation Limited

Sreekanth Vs the Village Officer