IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1933 RP.No. 792 of 2011() -------------------- (AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.21098/11 DTAED 17.8.11) REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONERS -------------------------------------------------------- 1. MANOJKUMAR N.R., PROPRIETOR, NRM ENTERPRISES, 5/507(9/855), PARACKALCHALLA, GOVINDAPURAM POST, KAMBRATHCHALLA, MUTHALAMADA, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. NOW R/AT NADUMURI HOUSE, GOVINDAPURAM POST, MUTHALAMADA, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. RAMAMURTHI P., S/O. PALANIAPPAN, NO.7, RCC, 206-261, S.G.MUTT ROAD, CHAMRAJ P., E.T., BANGALORE-560 018, KARNATAKA. NOW R/AT 8/89, MUTHUGAPATTY P.O., SOUTH STREET, MUTHUGAPATTY, NAMACKAL DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU, PIN-637405. BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALATHUR POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. THE GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINING & GEOLOGY, TOWN BUS-STAND COMPLEX, PALAKKAD-14. SR.GOVT.PLEADER SMT.M.J.RAJASHREE THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: RP NO.792/11 APPENDIX REVIEW PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ANNEXURE A : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD.22.10.11(NO.LRG 3-2011/ 47541/9)PASSED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. ANNEXURE B : TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD.22.10.11 ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE REVIEW PETITIONER NO.2. ANNEXURE C : TRUE COPY OF GO(MS)NO.917/1997. ANNEXURE D : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.26.9.2011 PASSED IN CRL.M.P.NO. 4528/2011 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT, ALATHUR. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ R.P.No.792 OF 2011 in W.P.(C) NO. 21098 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 9th day of November, 2011 O R D E R The writ petition filed by the petitioners was disposed of by judgment dated 17/8/11 directing that since the proceedings initiated against the vehicle was under the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, the vehicle should be produced before the Jurisdictional Magistrate. 2. Based on the judgment, it appears that the petitioners also moved the jurisdictional Magistrate, who passed Annexure D order dated 26/9/11. The said order shows that, no complaint or FIR has been lodged against the petitioners and that inspite of the same, in deference to the judgment passed by this Court, the Magistrate has ordered that the vehicle be given to the petitioners on interim custody basis subject to the conditions specified therein. 3. It appears that subsequent to that order, petitioners got the offence compounded invoking Section 23A of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and R.P.No.792/11 in WPC No. 21098/11 :2 : accordingly Annexure A order dated 22/10/11 was passed by the District Collector. Now the present position is that though the offence as such is compounded, the petitioners are faced with the requirement of complying with the terms of Annexure D order, as a result, the vehicle still remains in custody. It is in these circumstances, the review petition has been filed. 4. In my view, this is a situation which is created by the petitioners themselves. 5. Irrespective of the technicalities, now that the offence itself is seen to have been compounded as per Annexure A order dated 22/10/11, there is no question of any complaint being filed against the petitioners. 6. In that view, all that is necessary is that the Magistrate need only drop the proceedings on the application made by the petitioners resulting in Annexure D order, in which event, the petitioners can get the vehicle released free of all conditions. Review petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp