Disposed

Prajeesh v. the Sub Inspector of Police, Thrithala Police Station

Kerala HC25 Feb 2015WP(C)/1678/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenging a vehicle seizure claimed the seizing officer lacked jurisdiction. The court observed that the petitioners deposited the secured amount and are ready to compound offences. Consequently, the court directed the petitioners to file a compounding petition within one month to drop further proceedings and disposed of the writ petition accordingly. No substantive rule of law was l

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was permitted to compound the offences by filing a compounding petition within one month, with the deposited sum to be appropriated as fine and proceedings dropped thereafter.

Prajeesh Vs the Sub Inspector of Police… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/6TH PHALGUNA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 1678 of 2013 (H)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. PRAJEESH, S/O. RAMAN, AGED 23 YEARS, PULAVARKUNNU PARAMBIL HOUSE, PATTITHARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. (DRIVER OF LORRY BEARING REGISTRATION NO. KL-52-A-3007).

¶8

2. ABDUL NASAR, S/O. MUHAMMED, KODAKKANCHERY HOUSE, V.K. KADAVU. P.O., THRITHALA, PATTAMBI, (OWNER OF LORRY BEARING REGISTRATION NO. KL-52-A-3007.)

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ.

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THRITHALA POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 613.

¶12

BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.RAFEEK. V.K.

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

rs.

¶15

WP(C).No. 1678 of 2013 (H)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶18

EXT.P1 COPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHAZAR DATED 02/01/2013 PREPARED BY THE RESPONDENT.

¶19

EXT.P2 COPY OF THE WRITTEN REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE FIRST PETITIONER DATED 02/01/2013 BEFORE THE RESPONDENT.

¶20

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

rs.

A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

¶25

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P(C) No.1678 of 2013

¶26

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 25^th day of February, 2015

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

The first petitioner is the driver and second petitioner is the owner of a lorry bearing Reg. No. KL-52-A-3007, which was seized by the respondent on 2.1.2013 under the provisions of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967 on the allegation that the vehicle was used for unauthorized transportation of red earth. The petitioners allege that the 2^nd respondent is not an authorized officer under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act or the Rules framed thereunder. Therefore, according to the petitioners, the seizure of the vehicle by the 2^nd respondent is illegal and beyond his jurisdiction. It is with this background, the petitioners have come up before this Court.

¶29

This Court, by interim order dated 17.01.2013, ordered release of the vehicle to the petitioners on satisfaction of a sum of ₹25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) before the concerned respondent/Sub Inspector of Police and on executing a simple bond, undertaking to produce the vehicle as and when called for and that the vehicle would not be alienated or encumbered during

¶30

WP(C)1678/13

¶31

-:2:-

¶32

pendency of further proceedings.

¶33

Today, when the matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that on the basis of the aforesaid direction, the amount has been deposited and the petitioners got the vehicles released. It is also submitted that the petitioners iareeady to get the offences compounded. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of permitting the petitioners to compound the offences.

¶34

If the petitioners are ready to compound the offences, they 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 petition, the respondent shall appropriate the amount deposited by the petitioners towards fine, to be paid by him. After compounding the offences, the respondent shall report the fact to the Magistrate's Court concerned so that further proceedings could be dropped.

¶35

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE

¶38

krj

Prajeesh v. the Sub Inspector of Police, Thrithala Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prajeesh v. the Sub Inspector of Police, Thrithala Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Hakkim Sherif Vs State of Kerala

Ashraf Ali S Vs the Kerala State Warehousing Corporation

Ansar Vs the Thahasildar, Kottarakkara

Reji P.Varghese Vs the Director of Mining & Geology Department

N.P.Raman Kutty Vs State of Kerala

Musaliyar Education Trust Vs Government of Kerala