Quashed

Abu.K.M v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Sept 2017WP(C)/15358/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a District Collector's order directing release of seized bricks to the Brick Kiln Monitoring Centre after the petitioner had remitted statutory dues. The court quashed the order allowing the petitioner use of the bricks.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P7 order directing handover of bricks quashed; petitioner permitted to use the bricks after remittance of amount mentioned in Ext.P4 notice.

Abu.K.M Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017/27TH BHADRA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 15358 of 2017 (T)

¶6

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:

¶7

ABU K.M., AGED 59 YEARS, S/O MUHAMMED, KUNNUMMAL HOUSE, SOUTH ADUVASSERY, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM-683578.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.T.B.HOOD

¶9

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIES (A) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶11

2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, PALAKKAD-678001.

¶12

3. VILLAGE OFFICER, ELAPPULLY VILLAGE-I, PALAKKAD-678622.

¶13

4. GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, TOWN BUS STAND COMPLEX, PALAKKAD-678014.

¶14

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-09-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

WP(C).No. 15358 of 2017 (T)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

----------------------EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO DATED 28.01.2017 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHZAR DATED 04.02.2017 PREPARED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.03.2017 IN WRIT PETITION(CIVIL)NO.7422/2017 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 22.03.2017 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 27.03.2017 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.04.2017 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 03.05.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 7.3.2017 IN WPC.7615/2017 EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.6.2017 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT

¶21

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05.07.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

TRUE COPY

P.S. TO JUDGE

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶28

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶29

W.P.(C).No.15358 of 2017-T.

¶30

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 18^th day of September, 2017

¶31

J U D G M E N T

¶32

The petitioner is a brick manufacturer. Certain

¶33

quantity of bricks manufactured by the petitioner have been seized by the third respondent alleging violation of the provisions contained in the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015. The petitioner approached this Court challenging the said conduct of the third respondent and as per Ext.P3 judgment, this Court directed the fourth respondent to take a decision in the matter in accordance with the provisions contained in the said Rules. It is seen that pursuant to Ext.P3 judgment, the fourth respondent issued Ext.P4 notice directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.7,80,000/- towards the value of the bricks and Rs.28,800/towards royalty. It is stated that the petitioner has remitted the aforesaid amounts mentioned in Ext.P4 notice and consequently, Ext.P6 order was passed by the fourth respondent permitting the District Collector to issue further orders for release of the bricks.

¶34

¶35

WP.(C).No.15358/2017-T.

¶36

It is seen that despite Ext.P6 order, the District Collector issued Ext.P7 order directing the petitioner to hand over the bricks seized from the petitioner to the Nirmithi Kendra. Ext.P7 order is under challenge in this writ petition.

¶37

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as

¶38

also the learned Government Pleader.

¶39

In the light of Ext.P6 order and the payment of the amounts directed in Ext.P4, there cannot be any impediment at all in releasing the bricks seized from the petitioner.

¶40

In the circumstances, Ext.P7 communication issued by the District Collector is quashed and the petitioner is permitted to

¶41

make use of the bricks in respect of which he has remitted the value and the royalty in terms of Ext.P4 notice.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

¶44

Kvs/-

¶45

// true copy //

Abu.K.M v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abu.K.M 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.K.Ahammed Vs Dr. Navjotkhosa

K.R.Saleelanath Vs the District Collector

P.Kunhikoran Vs the Pilicode Grama Panchayat

Koorimannil Manappattu Sabira Vs District Collector, Malappuram

Davis v.John Vs the District Collector, Thrissur

Shaji M. Vs M.Ramanunni