Sreejith vs Sub Inspector of Police

A. Muhamed Mustaque, J—The batch of these petitions are filed for release of the vehicle seized by the Authorities for contravening provisions of Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules 2015 (hereinafter referred to as ''KMMC Rules'' or Kerala Minerals (Prevention of Transportation) Rules 2015 (hereinafter referred to as Transportation Rules). The petitioners in all these Writ Petitions seek an opportunity for compounding the offence.

The petitioners urge that there must be uniformity in fixing the compounding fee and they are all prepared to compound the offence.

The Rule 111 of the KMMC Rules provides compounding offence. The offence can be compounded by person authorized to file a complaint under Rule 110. Similarly Rule 32 of Transportation Rules also provides for compounding offence. It is also stipulates that the offence can be compounded by an authority who is authorized to file a complaint before the court in terms of S. 22 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957 (MMDR Act) or sub-clause (ii) of R.2 of the Transportation Rules.

Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957 provides that no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act or any rules made thereunder except upon complaint in writing made by a person authorised in this behalf by the Central or me State Government. The State Government issued a notification dated 5.6.2015 (G.O. (P) No. 77/2015/ID whereby the State Government designated the following officers u/S. 22 of the MMDR Act.

In view of the above, the only officers referred as above are alone competent to file a complaint and compound the offence.

The question is whether this Court can order release of the vehicle on payment of compounding fee. The learned Government Pleader relied upon the judgment of this Court in T.T. Kuriakose Vs. Sub-Inspector of Police(2015) 3 KLT 288 and submitted that since Rules do not provide for any clear guidelines, as to how the compounded fee should be determined, the directions in the above judgment shall be followed. No doubt, judgment of the above case, may require a consideration by the Government in the manner in which compounding fee has to be collected for compounding the offences. However, in view of the notification of the Government referred as above, the officers authorised to file a complaint to compound the offence has no less significance in the matter to exercise discretion for fixing the rate of fee for compounding the offence. In the above notification, it can be seen that power can be exercised by the Director/Additional Director/Deputy Directors of the Mining and Geology/Senior Geologist/Geologist including District Collector. This Court is of the view that those officers can take appropriate decision taking into account of the gravity of me offence of the cases. When primary authority is conferred the power that authority can decide upon the manner in which compounding fee can be fixed. The judicial review is limited to examine the exercise of the power. It is for the authority to decide what is the rate that would be applicable in each cases for fixing the compounding fee, taking into account of the penalty provisions referred in the Rules.

In that view of the matter, this Writ Petition is disposed of by directing that if the petitioners approach the Geologist of the Revenue District concerned, the Geologist shall permit the petitioners to compound the offence, in accordance with relevant Rules on payment of the compounding fee fixed by him within one week from the receipt of the request of compounding being submitted by the petitioners. The Seizing Authority in each cases shall report the matter along with seizure mahazar before the Geologist within three days. It is made clear that the directions in this judgment, would be applicable only if the petitioners have contravened the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957 or Transportation Rules alone.