The High Court of Kerala held that a writ petition challenging an order directing the petitioner to remit the value of a seized vehicle became infructuous as the petitioner was discharged in the criminal proceedings and the vehicle was already released by the Magistrate during the pendency of the case.
Writ petition dismissed as infructuous.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/12TH KARTHIKA, 1938
WP(C).No. 597 of 2010 (Y)
PETITIONER :
ANISH.M.K., AGED 30 YEARS,S/O. KUMARAN, MARTHANDASSERI HOUSE, UDAYANAPURAM.P.O., VADAKKEMURY VILLAGE, VAIKOM, TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. PIN-686 143.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.V.PRAKASAN SRI.V.R.ARUN SRIJEEMON JOHN SRI.S.RUSSEL
RESPONDENT(S):
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA,
PIN-688 001.
2. THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT COLLECTORATE,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688 001.
3. THE S.I. OF POLICE, ARTHUNKAL POLICE STATION, ARTHUNKAL.P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688 523.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. S.KANNAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
SHAJI P. CHALY, J.
W.P.(C)No.597 of 2010
Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2016
J U D G M E N T
-------------------
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner
challenging Ext.P4 order passed by the 1st respondent as per the provisions of Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001, whereby petitioner was directed to remit value of the vehicle taken in custody for violating the provisions of the said Act. During the pendency of the proceeding, crime No.264/2009 was registered against the petitioner under Section 17(4) and 23 r/w Section 20 of the Kerala River Bank Protection Act and other provisions of the MMDR Act, 1997.
of the matter, I do not think anything survives in the writ
W.P.(C)No.597 of 2010 2
petition because during the pendency of the crime itself the vehicle was released to the petitioner by the Magistrate. Apparently on discharge, the order so passed in the release of the vehicle must have attained a finality.
Therefore, nothing survives in the writ petition.
Writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
Sd/-
SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.
[ True copy]
P.A. to Judge
rmm/4/11/2016
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the order for payment of vehicle value survives after the petitioner was discharged in the criminal proceedings.
Whether the release of the vehicle during pendency of criminal proceedings renders the writ petition infructuous.
5 provisions across 5 enactments
Anish.M.K.
The District Collector, Alappuzha
The District Geologist, Alappuzha
The S.I. of Police, Arthunkal
Shaji P. Chaly
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
