Disposed

Eco Sand v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Kerala HC3 Dec 2020WP(C)/26852/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of the writ petition directing the Sub-Inspector to forward seized vehicle files to the District Geologist for consideration of the petitioner's application to compound the alleged offence, necessary for the vehicle's release.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent to forward seizure files to the second respondent to consider compounding the offence within one week.

Eco Sand Vs the Sub Inspector of Police — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.26852 OF 2020(F)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

M/s.ECO SAND TP - 15 - 17, KAPPICHETHU, VANJOD, WAYANAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, MR. FAHEEM B.P

¶8

BY ADV. SHRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KONDOTTY POLICE STATION, KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM - 673638.

¶11

2 THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST, MALAPPURAM - 676121.

¶12

BY ADV.SRI.PAUL ABRHAM VAKKANAL,GP

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C).No.26852 OF 2020(F)

¶15

¶16

W.P.(C) No.26852 of 2020

¶17

J U D G M E N T

¶18

The petitioner owns a vehicle bearing registration No.KL-72C-3205. The vehicle referred to above was seized by the first respondent on 28.11.2020 alleging commission of offence punishable under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. The case of the petitioner is that seizure of the vehicle of the petitioner is illegal and the petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions for release of the same.

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader.

¶20

When the matter was taken up, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the seizure of the vehicle of the petitioner is illegal, as it is required for the day-to-day activities of the petitioner, the petitioner is prepared to compound the offence alleged against them, and prayed for appropriate orders to compound the offence and to get release of the vehicle at the earliest.

¶21

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the orders passed by this court in similar and identical writ petitions, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to forward the files relating to the seizure of the vehicle of the

¶22

WP(C).No.26852 OF 2020(F)

¶23

¶24

petitioner to the second respondent forthwith, and directing the second respondent to consider the application, if any, submitted by

¶25

the petitioner for compounding the offence. This shall be done within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR

JUDGE

WP(C).No.26852 OF 2020(F)

¶31

¶32

APPENDIX

¶33

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶34

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE DATED 07.06.2019 OF THE VEHICLE BARING NO. KL 72 C 3205. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT IN RESPECT OF THE VEHICLE VALID UPTO 23-06-2024. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR DATED 28.11.2020. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSIT PASS ISSUED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY.

¶35

//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

Eco Sand v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Eco Sand v. the Sub Inspector of Police

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

Joby Mathew Vs Director of Mining and Geology

K.K.Damodharan Vs State of Kerala

Forward Seamens Union of India, Vs Dr. Sanjeev Ranjan

M.Pechimuthu Vs State Election Commissioner

Sreeram Hollow Bricks Vs Ottapalam Municipality

T.Mohammed Musthafa, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer