Dismissed

Vijayan. P v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Jun 2016WP(C)/18995/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Judge K. Vinod ChandrAN dismissed a writ petition challenging the seizure of a JCB Excavator. The court held that the petitioner failed to prove that the required intimation was given to the Geologist. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit, but the court permitted an option to compound the offence by paying a fee for the vehicle's release.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed. The learned Senior Geologist was directed to levy a compounding fee of Rs.75,000/- upon the petitioner's application to compound the offence and release the vehicle.

Vijayan. P Vs the State of Kerala — Mining and Natural Resources | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2016/31ST JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 18995 of 2016 (Y)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

VIJAYAN. P., AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAN P., PAZHAMKANDATHIL (H), SUKHAPURAM P.O., EDAPPAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.K.DILIP

¶9

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:-:

¶10

1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT., REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR PONNANI TALUK.

¶12

3. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST

¶13

DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶14

4. THE KALADY GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KADANCHERY, PIN - 679 582.

¶15

R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI MANOJ P KUNJACHAN R BY SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURIKAN, SC, KALADY GRAMA PANC

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No. 18995 of 2016 (Y)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE VEHICLE BEARING NO.KL-54-G.9055 DATED 11.03.2016. P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHAZAR DATED 22.05.2016. P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 16.10.2015. P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY ABDUL KHADER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 20.05.2016. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:NIL -----------------------

TRUE COPY

P.A TO JUDGE

jma

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J

- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C) No. 18995 of 2016

¶25

¶26

Dated this the 21^st day of June, 2016

¶27

The petitioner is aggrieved with the seizure of a JCB Excavator bearing registration No. KL-54-G-9055 by the 2^nd respondent. The petitioners contention is that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle and the excavation work was carried on in a property in which the owner had obtained building permit which is

¶28

produced at Ext.P4. The owner had also intimated the Geologist by Ext.P4; is the contention.

¶29

The seizure mehazar would indicate that the JCB

¶30

was found excavating sand from re-survey No.126/1,3 of Kalady village. An approved building permit is said to be obtained from the Panchayat. Reliance placed is on Rule 14 of the Kerala Minor

¶31

Mineral Concession Rules 2015 which though regulates a quarrying permit for extracting even ordinary earth, by sub section

¶32

WPC.No.18995/2016

¶33

: 2 :

¶34

(2)exempts the requirement of a permit when the extraction is

¶35

made for construction of, inter alia a residential building having a plinth area of 300 square meters.

¶36

The learned Government however, takes me to Rule

¶37

106, the proviso of which mandates that even in such situation, an intimation has to be given to the Geologist. The petitioner's contention is that the owner had given such an intimation as is seen from Ext.P4. The leaned Government Pleader on instruction from the 3^rd respondent, submits that no such intimation has been received at the 3^rd respondent's office. It is also submitted that the daily register maintained at the office of the 3^rd respondent has been personally verified by him and there is no such intimation received at the office of the 3^rd respondent. The petitioner also does not produce any documents to show that the owner of the building has in fact given the intimation as per Ext.P4. It is also pertinent that the owner of the building has not been impleaded in

¶38

WPC.No.18995/2016

¶39

: 3 :

¶40

the above writ petition. In such circumstance, the writ petition is dismissed for reason of it being devoid of merit. However, if the petitioner seeks for compounding; following the judgment in W.P (C)No.17365/2016 and connected cases, dated 26.05.2016, the 3^rd respondent shall levy compounding fee of Rs.75,000/-, upon which the offence shall be compounded and the vehicle released to the

¶41

petitioner.

¶42

Writ petition is dismissed with the above observations.

¶43

Sd/(K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE)

¶44

jma

¶45

//true copy//

¶46

P.A to Judge

Vijayan. P v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijayan. P v. the 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Udayan Vs Punalur Municipality

Reliance Security Agency Vs Gopalankutty Kurupu

G. Sakunthala Vs State of Kerala

Deputy Inspector General of Police Vs Kaveri S.

Rajeevan.K.K Vs the Vice Chancellor, University Fo Calicut

Nila Exports Vs the Environmental Engineer