IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 24TH JANUARY 2008 / 4TH MAGHA 1929 W.P.(C).No. 37438 of 2007(F) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ MANOHARAN, CHIRATTAKARI, EDAYAZHAM, VECHOOR, VAIKOM. BY ADV. SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE GEOLOGIST, KOTTAYAM. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VAIKOM. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. I.V. PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P. (C) No. 37438 OF 2007 - F = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 24th day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T Ext. P1 order is under challenge. By this order, the 1st respondent has imposed a fine of Rs.25,000/- on the petitioner for having mined ordinary sand by using the motor and further directing to retain the motor until prosecution steps are taken against those who are guilty. It is the contention of the petitioner that till now no prosecution proceedings has been initiated. Relying on the judgment in the case reported in Sanjayan v. Tahsildar {2007 (4) KLT 597}, the petitioner contends that under the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, there is absolutely no authorisation to the Revenue or the police authorities to impose any fine on a person who is alleged to have contravened the provisions of the said rules. This position is not in controversy and if that be so, Ext. P1 levying fine cannot be sustained. It may be W.P.(C) No.37438/07 - 2 - true that the motor in question is necessary for the prosecution that is ordered in Ext.P1. But since, till date prosecution proceedings has not been initiated, the further detention of the motor cannot be justified. Therefore, I direct that the motor that is ordered to be detained in Ext.P1 be released to the petitioner. This, however, shall be without prejudice to the right of the respondents to initiate any action as is permissible in law, if the petitioner has committed violation of any of the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-