CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Sarafudheen vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 23 June 2023 · Citation: (2023) 06 KL CK 0353

HON’BLE JUDGES
N.Nagaresh, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (C) No. 20536 Of 2023
Download PDFAsk AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 336 words

N.Nagaresh, J

1.

The petitioner is before this Court aggrieved by the alleged illegal seizure of the vehicle of the petitioner by the 2nd respondent-Sub Inspector of Police.

2.

The petitioner states that he is the owner of Tipper Lory bearing registration No.KL-71J-1460. The lorry was purchased in the year 2021. The vehicle was used for transporting construction materials.

3.

The petitioner states that on 19.06.2023, while the vehicle was in use for transporting construction materials, the 2nd respondent seized the vehicle alleging that the vehicle has been used in violation of the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. The petitioner states that the tipper lorry was not used for any illegal activities or to violate the provisions of the MMDR Act. The detention of the lorry by the 2nd respondent would cause irreparable loss to the petitioner. The petitioner is ready and willing to compound the offence. The petitioner therefore seeks appropriate reliefs in the matter.

4.

Government Pleader resisted the writ petition and denied all the allegations made by the petitioner in the writ petition. On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that the Sub Inspector of Police, who has seized the vehicle, has reported the matter to the Geologist. Once the matter is reported to the 3rd respondent-Geologist, it is open to the petitioner to approach the Geologist for compounding the offence.

5.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing respondents.

6.

Going through the pleadings, I find that the petitioner has already submitted Ext.P3 application for compounding the offence, before the 3rd respondent. Therefore, the writ petition can be disposed of with appropriate directions.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to report the seizure of the vehicle to the 3rd respondent-District Geologist, if it is not already reported. The 3rd respondent- District Geologist shall take a decision in the matter as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of seven days.