IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 13TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 22ND KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 31083 of 2009(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.K.NOUFAL,S/O.V.KOYATTY, VAYAPPURATH HOUSE, P.O.MAYANDU, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN SRI.K.S.RAJESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,PALAKKAD. BY GP SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J ------------------- W.P.(C).31083/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 13th day of November, 2009 JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is the registered owner of a goods vehicle that was seized and produced before the District Collector, Palakkad, on the allegation that it was used to transport sand in violation of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967 and the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation)Act., 1957. The petitioner challenges Ext.P5 order passed by the District Collector compounding the offence by levying a compound fee of Rs.50,000/-. The petitioner submits that he had not applied for or requested for compounding the offence and therefore the District Collector erred in compounding the offence by levying compounding fee. 3. When this writ petition came up for hearing on 2.11.2009, the learned Government Pleader was requested to make available the fies leading upto Ext.P5. The files were W.P.(C).31083/09 2 accordingly made available by him today. On going through the files, I find that no written request from the petitioner to compound the offence. I am therefore of the opinion that the District Collector could not have ordered compounding of the offence. If the petitioner is guilty of violating the provisions of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967, and Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act., 1957, the District Collector can only initiate steps to prosecute him in the competent criminal court. Confiscation can be ordered only by the competent criminal court. In such circumstances, Ext.P5 order directing the vehicle to be released on payment of Rs.50,000/- is quashed. The District Collector shall, if he intends to prosecute the petitioner, take appropriate steps in that regard within one month from today. If within the said period of one month, no steps in that regard are taken, the District Collector shall release the petitioner's vehicle. If on the other hand, the District Collector initiates steps to prosecute the petitioner, the Sub Inspector of Police concerned shall file a report regarding seizure of the vehicle in the concerned Magistrate Court. It will be open to the W.P.(C).31083/09 3 petitioner at that stage to move the criminal court seeking release of the vehicle. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge mrcs