Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI MONDAY, THE24H DAY OF FEBRUARY20145TH PHALGUNA, 1935 WP(C).No. 16307 of 2012 (k) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- SAJAYAN, AGED31YEARS, S/O.VENU, EDATHIRINJI HOUSE, MUPLIYAM VILLAGE, MUPLIYAM DESOM. (DRIVER OF LORRY BEARING REGISTRATION NO KL-12-C- 4675) BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ RESPONDENT: ---------------------- THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VELLIKULANGARA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 693. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SUNITHA VINOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON2402-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Msd. WP(C).No. 16307 of 2012 (k) ---------------------------------------- APPENDIX --------------- PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS: -------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHASSAR DATED0807.2012 PREPARED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED0907.2012 BEFORE THE RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
DATED0207.2012 IN W.P(C). NO. 15046/2012 ON THE FILE OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: ----------------------------------------- NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE. Msd. A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P(C) No.16307 of 2012 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 24th day of February, 2014 JUDGMENT
The petitioner has come up before this Court alleging that though he had made Ext.P2 request before the respondent for compounding the offence as provided under the Kerala Miner Mineral Concession Rules, 1967 that opportunity was not given to him.
2. The petitioner is the driver of the lorry which was seized under the provisions of the aforesaid rules on the allegation that the vehicle was used for transportation of earth without sanction. The same was seized under Ext.P1 mahazar. Though the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 request for compounding, it was not considered by the authorities concerned. It is in this context, the petitioner has come up before this Court.
3. The only prayer in this writ petition is for a direction to the respondent to consider Ext.P2 request.
4. This Court by order dated 13th July, 2012 directed the respondent to consider Ext.P2 application for compounding and pass appropriate orders within a period of 10 days from the date of production of a copy of that order. It is also directed that the WP(C).16307/12 -:2:- vehicle involved would be released to the petitioner on executing a simple bond. It was also directed that the petitioner should undertake that the vehicle would not be alienated or further encumbered during the pendency of the writ petition.
5. Today when the matter was taken up, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the basis of that order, the petitioner obtained release of the vehicle on bond. The learned counsel submitted that the authority who seized the vehicle was not the competent authority to exercise the powers of seizure. Once the petitioner has submitted an application to the authorities concerned for compounding under Section 60(A) (1) of the Rules, the petitioner cannot question the competency of the officer who seized the vehicle. As the purpose sought to be achieved by filing this writ petition has been served by obtaining the interim order dated 13.7.2012, the writ petition is closed without is closed without examining the merits. Sd/- A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE krj