IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2008 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 30921 of 2008(F) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SHAMALA YOUCEF, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O.YOUCEF, CHAKKALAPURAIDAM, KATTOOR PETTA MURI, NARANGANAM NORTH P.O., KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.AJITH MURALI RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ARANMULA POLICE STATION, KOZHENCHERRY, PATHANAMTHITTA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOZHENCHERRY, PATHANAMTHITTA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.R. SREELATHA FOR R1 TO R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/12/2008 ALONG WITH WPC.NO.35384 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.30921/2008 F APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF THE REGISTRATION OF THE VEHICLE. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE FIR DTD. 29/08/2008 PREPARED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN THE WP(C) NO.14802/2008, 14803/08, 14905/08 DTD. 26/05/08. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No. 30921 & 35384 of 2008 ------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of December, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioners are aggrieved by the seizure of their vehicles by the Sub Inspector of Police, for alleged infractions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. I will refer to W.P.(C)No.30921/08 in the first instance. W.P.(C)No.30921/08 2. The petitioner is the owner of a mini lorry bearing registration No.KLQ 3031. It seems that one Fathima Beevi obtained permission under the Land Utilisation Order to convert 5 cents of land, for which she had engaged the petitioner's vehicle for the said purpose. On 29.8.2008 the 2nd respondent seized the vehicle and another vehicle on the ground of illegal transportation of sand. A crime was registered in the Aranmula Police Station under the Mines and Mineral [Development and Regulation] Act. A perusal of Ext.P2 FIR would show that the vehicle W.P.(C).NOs.30921 & 35384/08 :: 2 :: was taken into custody on the ground that it was being used unauthorisedly for filling up paddy fields. 3. It is contended that the provisions of the Land Utilisation Order do not empower the police officials to seize any vehicle for alleged infraction of the Land Utilisation Order. He can report the matter to the concerned Revenue Divisional Officer, who is competent to take action. But the seizure by a police official is unauthorised. 4. I heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader. 5. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners seems to be justified. If the petitioners have been found to be indulging in any action, which is an infraction of the MMRD Act, then they are liable to be prosecuted. If the vehicles are taken into custody for infraction of the MMRD Act, then the vehicles must be produced before the competent jurisdictional magistrate, if they are otherwise liable for confiscation. It is not open to the police officials to simply retain the vehicle. No such W.P.(C).NOs.30921 & 35384/08 :: 3 :: power has been vouchsafed under the Land Utilisation Order. In an almost similar fact situation, this court has, as per Ext.P3, held that the alleged violation of the Land Utilisation Order does not empower a police official to seize a vehicle, if the vehicle is involved in such an offence. 6. Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the seizure of the vehicles have not been reported to the concerned Revenue Divisional Officer by the concerned Sub Inspector of Police. 7. For all these reasons, I am of the view that the vehicles are liable to be released at the petitioners' expense. Accordingly, the vehicles in question shall be released to the petitioners on each of them executing a bond undertaking to produce the same as and when it is required, for the purpose of any action that may be taken pursuant to the registration of crime made as per Ext.P2 FIR. It is made clear that if it is found that the petitioners have contravened the provisions of the MMRD Act or the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, it is open to the police officials to seek W.P.(C).NOs.30921 & 35384/08 :: 4 :: custody of the vehicles and such custody will be treated as proper and by enforcement of the bond, the vehicles may, straight away, be produced before the magistrate, who is competent to deal with offences under the MMRD Act or the Rules. It will then be open to the petitioners to move the jurisdictional magistrate for release of the vehicles in accordance with Sections 451 or 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Writ petitions are disposed of as above. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy//