Disposed

Muhammed Ajmal, v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Kerala HC20 May 2024WP(C)/16927/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Lorry owner sought direction to police to report vehicle seizure under mining laws to the District Geologist so he could apply for compounding the offence. Court directed the seizure be reported within two days and that any compounding application be considered within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to first respondent to report the vehicle seizure to the second respondent within two days; second respondent to consider compounding application within two weeks.

Muhammed Ajmal, Vs the Sub Inspector of Police — Mining and Natural Resources | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 20^TH DAY OF MAY 2024/30TH VAISAKHA, 1946 WP(C) NO.16927 OF 2024

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

MUHAMMED AJMAL, AGED 28 YEARS, SON OF MUHAMMED, KALLAN, PILATHARA, KADAMPUZHA, MELMURI, MALAPPURAM(OWNER OF A LORRY BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL-13-V-8302), PIN – 676533.

¶7

BY ADVS. P.M.ZIRAJ IRFAN ZIRAJ

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALPAKANCHERRY POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 676551.

¶10

2 THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST, DISTRICT OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, MINI CIVIL STATION, MANJERI P.O, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676121

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.AJITH VISWANATHAN, LEARNED GOVERNMENT PLEADER.

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

W.P(C) No.16927 of 2024

¶14

- 2 -

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

Dated, this the 20^th May, 2024

¶17

The petitioner is aggrieved by the non-reporting of the seizure of his vehicle alleging violation of the provisions of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 and the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.

¶18

2. It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner is prepared to compound the offence.

¶19

However, the same is not feasible due to the fact that the seizure has not been reported by the 1^st respondent to the 2^nd respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner would confine his prayer for a direction to the 1^st respondent to report the seizure to the 2^nd respondent, as also, to permit the petitioner to compound the offence within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶20

3. In answer to the above submission, learned

¶21

W.P(C) No.16927 of 2024 - 3 -

¶22

Government Pleader would submit that the 1^st respondent has reported the seizure to the R.D.O. concerned, who, however, is not the competent authority.

¶23

4. In the facts and circumstances, the 1^st

¶24

respondent is directed to report the seizure of the vehicle to the 2^nd respondent, within two days from today (20.05.2024). Once the seizure is reported, petitioner will file a necessary application seeking compounding of the offence as per statute. The application so filed will be considered by the 2^nd respondent, in accordance with law, within a time frame of two weeks, from the date of receipt of such application.

¶25

This W.P.(C) is disposed of accordingly.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

C.JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶28

¶29

W.P(C) No.16927 of 2024

¶30

- 4 -

¶31

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16927/2024

¶32

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶33

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHASAR DATED 23.3.2024 PREPARED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 15.2.2023 IN WPC NO.5102 OF 2023. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 4.4.2024 IN WPC NO.13889 OF 2024. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 23.4.2024 IN WPC NO.16353 OF 2024.

Muhammed Ajmal, v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Ajmal, 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

Rayees Vs State of Kerala

Adil Rizwan Vs State of Kerala

Nahas .N Vs State of Kerala

Sherly Mathai Vs Susamma Mathai

Anjali Philip @ Anjali Anna Philip Vs the Village Officer

Mathew Sebastian,Advocate Vs Paulose