IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 29688 of 2011(I) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. RAJU, S/O. THANKAPPAN ACHARY, 6/289, KATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, HARIPAD P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. SOMAN K.P., S/O. KUNJU KUNJU, SREE BHAVANAM, MUTTOM P.O., HARIPPAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANNAR POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-689 622. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, (SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE), CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-689 121. R1 & R2 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.J.RAJASREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.29688/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT OF HEAVY GOODS VEHICLE BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL-40B- 8457 ISSUED BY THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, KAYAMKULAM. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT OF HEAVY GOODS VEHICLE BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL-39C- 1446 ISSUED BY THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, THRIPUNITHURA. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE RELATING TO VEHICLE NO.KL-4-S -9119. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE SALE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN TH REGISTERED OWNER OF VEHICLE NO.KL-4-S -9119. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHAZAR PREPARED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EVIDENCING SEIZURE OF THE VEHICLE MENTIONED IN EXHIBIT P1. EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DTD.3.11.2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHAZAR PREPARED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EVIDENCING SEIZURE OF THE VEHICLE MENTIONED IN EXHIBIT P2. EXT.P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DTD.3.11.2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHAZAR PREPARED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EVIDENCING SEIZURE OF THE VEHICLE MENTIONED IN EXHIBIT P2. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DTD.3.11.2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.28.1.2011 ISSUED BY THE ADDL.CHIEF SECRETARY ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. EXT.P12: TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER MADE IN IA NO.6412/11 IN WPC NO.7390/2011 DTD.7.7.2011. EXT.P13: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT MADE IN WPC NO.23505/2011 DTD.5.9.2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).29688/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 16th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT First petitioner is the registered owner of a vehicle bearing No.KL-40B-8457 and he is also in possession of another vehicle bearing No.KL-39C-1446. Second petitioner is also a registered owner of a vehicle bearing No.KL-4S-9119. These vehicles were seized by the first respondent on 3.11.2011 during midnight. According to the petitioners, seizure was effected on the allegation of violation of the provisions of the Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The grievance in the writ petition is that though seizure was effected as early as on 3.11.2011, nothing further has been done and therefore, the writ petition is filed seeking appropriate orders. 2. The learned Government Pleader on instructions, submits that the vehicles were seized on the apprehension that the vehicles were engaged in illegal filling of wet land. It is stated that the first respondent made a report to the second respondent who in turn, made it over to the District Collector, Alappuzha, and that the matter is now pending before the said authority. W.P.(C).29688/11 2 3. If the proceedings initiated against the petitioners were under Act 28 of 2008, certainly the course adopted by the respondents would have been a proper one. However, mahazar indicates that the violation alleged is under the MMDR Act/KMMC Rules and if that be so, proceedings will have to be lodged before the appropriate Court. In any case, the matter is to be given a quietus adopting proper course which is to be adopted by the respondents. 4. Therefore, I direct that on the production of a copy of this judgment, respondents 1 and 2 will ensure that proper course of action is adopted against the vehicles in question either before the District Collector concerned, or by producing the vehicles before the jurisdictional Magistrate. This shall be done without delay, particularly having regard to the fact that the vehicles are under detention from 3.11.2011. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs /true copy/ P.A. To Judge