This court dismissed a writ petition challenging vehicle seizure and seeking release on lower compounding fees. The petitioner had previously obtained a judgment directing payment of a specific fee but failed to comply, thus being precluded from pleading for a reduced rate.
Dismissal of writ petition and denial of order for release of JCB on lower fee.
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 ANIL K.NARENDRAN
MONDAY,THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1941
WP(C).No. 3514 of 2019
PETITIONER:
JACOB.P.J., AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. CHACKO, PITTAPPILLIL HOUSE, CHUNGATHARA POST, NILABUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.A.V.JAMES
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2 THAHASILDAR, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679 329.
3 THE GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, DISTRICT OFFICE, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 121.
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VAZHIKKADAVU VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679 333.
SRI K.P.HARISH, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 3514 of 2019
-2-
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner of a JCB bearing registration No.KL-10/AE-5922. On 18.06.2018, the vehicle was seized by the 4th respondent Village Officer on the ground that it was used for extracting ordinary earth. Ext.P1 is the seizure mahzar issued by the 4th respondent. According to the petitioner, he was engaged by one Soman of Pallippurath House, Vazhikkadavu, for levelling his land for construction of a residential building. The document marked as Ext.P2 is stated to be the building permit obtained by the said Soman.
WP(C).No. 3514 of 2019
-3-
compounding fee of Rs.75,000/-, in terms of Ext.P4 judgment of this Court. Now the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 3rd respondent to consider Ext.P3 representation made by the petitioner and release his JCB bearing registration No.KL-10/AE-5922; and commanding the 3rd respondent to accept the present rate of compounding fee and release his JCB.
WP(C).No. 3514 of 2019
-4-
for further consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a copy of the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.21185 of 2016 shall be placed on record, along with an application to accept additional document. Pursuant to that order, the petitioner has produced that judgment as Ext.P4, along with I.A.No.1 of 2019. Paragraphs 5 to 8 and also the last paragraph of the said judgment read thus;
“5. The contention that only on transportation, the vehicles could be seized does not appeal to this Court, since the vehicles seized were a JCB and two goods vehicles, which together being present at the premise indicates an intention to transport the consignment after extraction. Admittedly extraction was also being carried out without permit and in violation of Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 2015 (for brevity, MMDR Act) and the KMMC Rules. The argument cannot be countenanced also since, there is a presumption that the goods vehicles are available in the property for carrying out transportation. In fact the contention raised on the basis of the NOC produced herein, is also that extraction is for building a residential home and the extracted sand would have to be lifted out of the land. In any event, the
WP(C).No. 3514 of 2019
-5-
excavation is clear from Ext.P1, which is not in accordance with the KMMC Rules, is admitted by the petitioners. The violation of the provisions of the Act and Rules would have to be proved in a properly instituted proceeding and this Court would not pre-empt it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
WP(C).No. 3514 of 2019
-6-
respondent herein. In such circumstance, the Village Officer shall produce the vehicles, within a period of one week before the Geologist and the Geologist shall produce the same before the jurisdictional Magistrate, within one week therefrom. The Geologist shall also produce a certified copy of this judgment before the Jurisdictional Magistrate; the latter of whom shall ensure that a release of the vehicles is effected only with reference to the penalty provisions which enable confiscation of the vehicles and imposition of fine of double the amount of royalty and double the value of the minerals, illegally extracted.
The writ petitions would stand dismissed with the above directions.”
also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
WP(C).No. 3514 of 2019
-7-
petition is as to whether the petitioner is entitled for the reliefs sought for, in view of Ext.P4 judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.21185 of 2016.
In such circumstances, as Ext.P4 judgment of this Court stands unchallenged, the petitioner is not entitled for the reliefs sought for in this writ petition and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE
bpr
WP(C).No. 3514 of 2019
-8-
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHAZER DATED 18.06.2016 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY,VAZHIKKADAVU GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 18.04.2015 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28.11.2018 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)NO.21185/2016 OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 28.06.2016.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought in view of the unchallenged finality of Ext.P4 judgment in W.P.(C) No.21185 of 2016.
Whether the petitioner can now claim a reduced compounding fee subsequent to the earlier judgment without complying with its directions.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Jacob P.J.
The State of Kerala
Anil K.Narendran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
