Disposed

Aramughan v. the District Collector

Kerala HC25 Feb 2015WP(C)/2604/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court declined interference with the Village Officer's authority to seize a vehicle under the Mines and Minerals Act. It permitted the petitioner to compound the alleged offence by paying Rs. 25,000 as a compounding fee, treating failure to pay as grounds for prosecution.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was permitted to compound the offence by paying Rs. 25,000; upon compounding, no prosecution proceedings would lie.

Aramughan Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

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

¶5

WP(C).No. 2604 of 2013 (A)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

ARAMUGHAN, S/O.RAMUTTY, 8/284, ARIKKUMPURATH HOUSE, CHERUKAVU MALAPPURAM DISTRICT (REGISTERED OWNER OF A MINI LORRY BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL-11 V/2667)

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR

¶9

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶10

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOZHIKODE, PIN -673 001.

¶11

2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 001.

¶12

3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, BAYPORE VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,

¶13

PIN - 673 015.

¶14

R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. M. MUHAMMED SHAFI

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

...2/-

¶18

WP(C).No. 2604 of 2013 (A)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :

¶21

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHAZAR PREPARED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 14/1/2013.

¶22

EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 3-4-2009 IN WPC NO.11206/2009 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶23

EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 7/12/2011 IN WPC NO.31828/2011 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶24

EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 3/6/2011 IN WPC NO.15058/2011 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶25

EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE INTERM ORDER DATED 11/3/2011 IN WPC NO.7689/2011 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶26

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶31

W.P.(C)No. 2604 OF 2013

¶32

......................................................................... Dated this the 25^th February, 2013

¶33

J U D G M E N T

¶34

The vehicle bearing No. KL.11 V/2667 was seized by the third respondent/Village Officer alleging offence under the Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act and the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules. The main ground of challenge is that, the third respondent/Village Officer is not having the jurisdiction or authority to effect seizure.

¶35

Heard both the sides.

¶36

The authority of the respondent to effect seizure has

¶37

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 rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Construction

¶38

Materials Movers Association V. State of Kerala [2008 (4) KLT 909] . In the said circumstance, there is no tenable ground

¶39

W.P.(C)No. 2604 OF 2013

¶40

¶41

to call for interference.

¶42

When the matter came up for consideration on 29.01.2013, the vehicle was caused to be released, on satisfaction of a sum Rs.25,000/- and on execution of a simple bond . In the said circumstance, the further course of action required is to surrender the vehicle before the third respondent/Village Officer, 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.

¶43

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 the offence compounded on satisfying the compounding fee of Rs.25,000/- . The amount ordered to be paid as per the interim order dated 29.01.2013 shall be treated as compounding fee and offence shall be treated as compounded. Once the offence is compounded, no prosecution proceedings will lie in view of the law declared by this Court in Digil Vs. Sub Inspector of Police [2013(1) KLT 600]. It shall be reported to

¶44

¶45

W.P.(C)No. 2604 OF 2013

¶46

the concerned Magistrate, if the crime has already been reported. If there is any failure in satisfying the compounding fee, the third respondent shall pursue further steps in connection with the prosecution before the concerned Magistrate having jurisdiction over the area.

¶47

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶48

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE

¶49

Aramughan v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aramughan v. the 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

Greenfield Floorings Private Ltd. Vs Anilkumar T.P.

K.D.Mathew Vs the Federal Bank Ltd.

The Kerala Public Service Commission Vs Shebin

Jishnu v.Dev Vs Babukuttan

James Abraham Vs the Chief Secretary

Abdul Khader Ashraf Vs Union of India