IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH DECEMBER 2009 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 34788 of 2009() ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SAIDHUMUHAMMED, S/O.SULAIMAN, AGED 30 YEARS, DRIVER, CHERUNAMBI HOUSE, ANDATHODU P.O PUNNAYRUKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PUNNAYRUKULAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT (OWNER OF A MINI LORRY BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL-5-U-8572). BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADANAPPILLY POLICE STATION. 2. THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. BY GP SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/12/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J ....................... W.P.(C).34788/2009 ....................... Dated this the 18th day of December, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the owner of a goods vehicle bearing registration No.KL-5-U-8572. The said vehicle was seized by the first respondent on 26.11.2009 on the allegation that it was used to transport sand in violation of the provisions contained in the Kerala Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. Thereupon, Crime No.807/2009 of Vadanappilly Police Station was registered against the petitioner. The petitioner submits that after the vehicle was seized, Ext.P1 FIR was registered, he has submitted Ext.P3 application dated 27.11.2009 before the first respondent requesting him to compound the offence. In this writ petition filed on 3.12.2009, the petitioner seeks a direction to the first respondent, the Sub Inspector of police, Vadanappilly Police Station to give him an opportunity to compound the offence. 2. The learned Government Pleader submits on instructions that the original of Ext.P3 has not been received by the Sub Inspector of Police and that the petitioner is not the accused in Crime No.807/09 of Vadanappilly Police W.P.(C).34788/09 2 Station. He also submits that the petitioner had filed an application dated 29.11.2009 to get the copies of the FIR and seizure mahazar and that no application for compounding the offence has been received from the petitioner. The learned Government Pleader contends that the petitioner is therefore not entitled to seek a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the first respondent to compound the offence and that the decision whether compounding should be permitted or not is to be taken by the first respondent, having regard to the facts of the case and that the petitioner cannot compel the first respondent to compound the offence. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits relying on the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C).14823 of 2009 that this Court has in identical circumstances directed the Sub Inspector of police, Changaramkulam Police Station to consider a similar request and take a decision within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The learned counsel submits that such being the situation, the petitioner may be given an opportunity to file a fresh application before the W.P.(C).34788/09 3 first respondent and the first respondent may be directed to take a decision thereon in accordance with law. 4. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel on both sides. Section 23A of the Kerala Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 inter alia states that any offence punishable under the Act may, either before or after institution of the prosecution, be compounded by the person authorized under Section 22 to make a complaint to the Court with respect to that aspect on payment to that person for the credit to the Government. A reading of Section 23A would show that the power to compound the offence is a discretionary power vested in the first respondent and that the petitioner cannot seek a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the first respondent to exercise that power. It is for the first respondent to take a decision in the matter and to either permit compounding or to reject the application. Therefore, the petitioner cannot seek a direction of the kind prayed for in this writ petition. I accordingly dispose of this writ petition with a direction that in the event of the petitioner moving the first W.P.(C).34788/09 4 respondent to compound the offence in terms of Section 23A of the Act, the first respondent shall consider the same and pass orders thereon in accordance with law, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge mrcs