Disposed

Babu.P v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Jul 2019WP(C)/14380/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an order imposing compounding fees and seizure of vehicles. Instead of adjudicating the merits, the Court directed the petitioners to persuade the statutory appellate authority (Additional 5th Respondent) to hear their appeal filed under Rule 98 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015, by remitting the requisite fee within ten days.

What did the court decide?

Directions to remit fee for appeal under Rule 98 and direct the Additional 5th Respondent to hear the appeal within three months.

Babu.P Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 18TH ASHADHA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.14380 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 BABU.P, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAN, RESIDING AT 'SREEPADAM', CHERUVANCHERRY, KANNUR, PIN-670650.

¶8

2 RAMESHAN V., AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.ANANDAN, VAYALAMBRATH, CHOKLI, MENAPRAM, KANNUR, PIN-670672.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.ASHWIN SATHYANATH

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.

¶12

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR,PIN-670002.

¶13

3 THE TAHSILDAR, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670101.

¶14

4 THE GEOLOGIST, DISTRICT OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, CIVIL STATION, E-BLOCK, KANNUR, PIN-670002.

¶15

WP(C).No.14380 of 2019

¶16

-2-

¶17

ADDL.R5 THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶18

ADDL.R5 IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 09.07.2019.

¶19

R1-R4 & SRI.HARISH K.P.,SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADDL.R5

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

WP(C).No.14380 of 2019

¶22

-3-

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

The petitioners, who are stated to be the registered

¶25

owners of two tipper vehicles bearing registration Nos.KL56/G-1475 and KL-58/F-2709 covered by Ext.P2 certificate of registration, have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P9 order dated 11.11.2018 issued by the 2^nd respondent imposing an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- each as compounding fee. According to the petitioners, the compounding fee demanded in Ext.P9 is excessive, in violation of the provisions under Ext.P1 Government order, i.e., G.O.(Ms) No.51/2017/ID dated 21.06.2017. The further relief sought for is a writ of mandamus commanding the 2^nd respondent to release the vehicles seized, on deposit of the requisite amount, as contemplated in Ext.P1 Government order.

¶26

On 24.05.2019, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader was directed to file a statement of the 4^th respondent.

¶27

On 10.06.2019, when this writ petition came up

¶28

WP(C).No.14380 of 2019

¶29

-4-

¶30

for consideration, the learned Government Pleader sought further time to file statement on behalf of the 4^th respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioners sought a clarification to the effect that the pendency of this writ petition will not stand in the way of the petitioners invoking the statutory remedy against Ext.P9 order dated 11.11.2018, by filing an appeal under Rule 98 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015, if so advised. It was clarified accordingly.

¶31

A statement has been filed by the 4^th respondent,

¶32

opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition.

¶33

Today, when the case is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have already challenged Ext.P9 order by filing an appeal on 20.06.2019 before the additional 5^th respondent, invoking the provisions under Rule 98 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015. The said appeal along with interlocutory application has already been forwarded to the additional 5^th respondent, by registered post, on 26.06.2019.

¶34

WP(C).No.14380 of 2019

¶35

-5-

¶36

The learned Senior Government Pleader would

¶37

submit that, if the appeal filed by the petitioners against Ext.P9 order is in order and the petitioners have remitted the requisite fee, the additional 5^th respondent shall consider that appeal and also the interlocutory application, and pass appropriate orders thereon, within a time limit to be specified by this Court.

¶38

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that, if the petitioners have not already remitted the requisite fee, the same shall be remitted, within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶39

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions;

¶40

i) If not already remitted, the petitioners shall remit the requisite fee for entertaining the appeal filed under Rule 98 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 against Ext.P9 order dated 11.11.2018 of the 2^nd respondent, within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. ii) If the appeal filed by the petitioners are in order

¶41

WP(C).No.14380 of 2019

¶42

-6-

¶43

and the petitioners have paid the requisite fee, the additional 5^th respondent shall consider the interlocutory application filed along with that appeal and pass appropriate orders thereon, with notice to the petitioners and after affording them an opportunity of being heard, within a period of ten days.

¶44

iii) Thereafter, the additional 5^th respondent shall consider and pass appropriate orders on the appeal filed by the petitioners against Ext.P9 order, with notice to the petitioners and after affording them an opportunity of being heard, strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶45

The legal and factual contentions raised by the petitioners are left open to be raised before appropriate authority, at appropriate stage.

¶46

Sd/- ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE

¶47

bpr

¶48

WP(C).No.14380 of 2019

¶49

-7-

¶50

APPENDIX

¶51

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶52

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS)NO.51/2017/ID DATED 21.06.2017. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF VEHICLES ALONG WITH GOODS CARRIAGE PERMIT IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONERS. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MAHZAR DATED 19.08.2017 PREPARED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO THE SEIZURE OF BOTH THE VEHICLE. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 19.08.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.10.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 9.4.2018 IN WPC.8428/2018. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES IN C.O.C.1620/2018 IN WPC.8428/2018. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 14.09.2018. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.11.2018 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT COMPOUNDING VARIOUS OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED VEHICLES DATED 07.05.2018.

¶53

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶54

ANNEXURE R4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. DCKNR/3502/2018-DM6 DATED 02.05.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Babu.P v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babu.P 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

Salim K.K., Vs State of Kerala

Shali P. Vs State of Kerala

Joseph.T.J., Vs the Secretary

Sheela Vs Elakamon Grama Panchayath

Mr.Ali, Vs State of Kerala

K.K.Anandan, Vs State of Kerala