High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-05-26W.P.(C) Nos.17365 of 2016 (U) and connected cas...

AloSious s/o Joseph v. District Geologist, Department of Mining and Geology, Idukki District; Inspector of Police, Thodupuzha; Law Secretary, Government of Kerala; Principal Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Government of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:W.P.(C) No. 17365 of 2016 (U)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Vinod Chandran
Judgment Date: 2016-05-26
Court Decision / Holding: The Court notes the lack of uniformity and directs the Government to formulate uniform guidelines within three months, taking into account the penalty provisions of the MMDR Act and the 2015 Rules. Interim compounding amounts are prescribed: goods vehicles – double the value of goods transported plus double the royalty plus Rs 50,000; JCBs – Rs 75,000. The Government is to inform officers designated under Section 22 of the MMDR Act of these interim figures, pending formal guidelines. The Court clarifies that higher amounts may be fixed once guidelines are in place, and that the rules governing river sand and related offences may be addressed in light of the MMDR framework. The petitions are disposed of with no costs. In W.P. No. 17219/2016, a vehicle release is permitted on payment of Rs 50,000 plus double the value and double the royalty, following the same policy. Deterrence remains the norm.
Final Disposition: W.P.(C) Nos.17365 of 2016 (U) and connected cases disposed with directions to issue uniform guidelines within three months. Interim compounding formulas for goods vehicles and JCBs fixed; Government to notify officers under Section 22; petitions disposed with no costs; related case 17219/2016 disposed with conditional release terms; deterrence emphasized.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

ALOSIOUS s/o JOSEPH

Respondents

The District Geologist, Department of Mining and Geology, Idukki District
The Inspector of Police, Thodupuzha, Idukki District
The Law Secretary, Government of Kerala
The Principal Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Government of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Sebin Sebastian

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. C.K. Sherin

Case Synopsis & Summary

This batch of writ petitions concerns compounding of offences under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act) and the related Kerala Rules governing mining and transport of minerals, notably the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 (KMMC Rules) and the Kerala Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Storage and Transportation) Rules, 2015 (Transportation Rules). The petitioner, Aloious s/o Joseph, owner of a lorry seized during alleged illegal mining/transportation of minerals, contends lack of uniformity in the fixation of compounding fees and calls for coherent guidelines. The Court traces prior jurisprudence: Digil v. Sub Inspector of Police (2013(1) KLT 600) and Sivakumar v. State of Kerala (2013 KHC 2757) had directed compounding at Rs.25,000 with release of vehicles under earlier statutory regimes (MMDR Act and 1967 Rules). With the 2015 amendments, the old standard no longer applies; Kuriakose (2015(3) KLT 288) held that penalties guide compounding, while Sreejith (2015(3) KLT 986) stressed uniformity. The Court ultimately directs that, in the interregnum, compounding be fixed by the Government considering penalties and rules, with interim guidelines: goods vehicles double the value of goods plus double royalty plus Rs.50,000; JCBs Rs.75,000. The Government is directed to issue formal guidelines within three months and ensure uniform application. The petitions are disposed with no costs, and a deterrent stance against repeated offences is emphasized.

Provisions of Law Cited

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act) - sections 21(2), 21(4), 21(4A), 21(5); Section 22; Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 (KMMC Rules); Kerala Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Storage and Transportation) Rules, 2015 (Transportation Rules); Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967; Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001.legal_maxims_and_doctrines_and_doctrines([])parties":{"respondents":["The District Geologist, Department of Mining and Geology, Idukki District" ,"The Inspector of Police, Thodupuzha, Idukki District" ,"The Law Secretary, Government of Kerala" ,"The Principal Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Government of Kerala"],"applicants":["ALOSIOUS s/o JOSEPH"]},lawyers":{"applicants":["Sri. Sebin Sebastian"],"respondents":["Smt. C.K. Sherin, Government Pleader"]},arguments":{"applicants":"The petitioners submit that there is no uniformity in fixation of compounding fees under the MMDR Act and related Rules across officers and districts. They urge the Court to lay down consistent, guidelines, reflecting the penalties under the Act and Rules, and caution against arbitrary demand of compounding fees. They rely on earlier judgments (Digil, Sivakumar, Kuriakose) to seek a structured approach to compounding, including value-based and royalty components, to deter illegal mining. They stress that any compounding regime must be backed by statutory parameters and administrative guidelines to avoid malpractices.","respondents":"The respondents, represented by the Government Pleader, contend that compounding is an instrument under the MMDR Act and the 2015 Rules. They argue for policy-driven, rule-based computation, and acknowledge the need for uniform guidelines. The Government is urged to assess and issue guidelines, taking into account current penalties and the statutory framework, while ensuring no dilution of deterrence. Meanwhile, proceedings should continue under the existing statutory regime."},court_decision":"The Court recognizes non-uniform application of compounding across departments and lays down that the Government must formulate uniform guidelines within three months, considering the penalty provisions under the MMDR Act and the 2015 Rules. Interim compounding amounts are fixed: for goods vehicles, double the value of goods transported plus double the royalty plus Rs.50,000; for JCBs, Rs.75,000. The Government must notify these guidelines to officers under Section 22 of the MMDR Act and apply them until formal guidelines are issued; the Court clarifies that later higher amounts may be fixed when guidelines are put in place. W.P.(C) Nos.17365 of 2016 and connected cases are disposed without costs. In a related case (W.P. No.17219/2016), a vehicle may be released upon compliance with the specified compounding formula, reflecting the same policy of using compounding as an alternative to penal proceedings. No contempt is entertained at this stage. The decision emphasizes deterrence and uniform enforcement of environmental and mining regulations.","bench":"Single Judge","case_disposition":"W.P.(C) Nos.17365 of 2016 (U) and connected cases disposed with directions to issue uniform guidelines within three months. Interim compounding formulas fixed for goods vehicles and JCBs; conditional release of vehicles subject to payment per directive; No costs. Related petition 17219/2016 disposed with conditional release terms; No contempt at this stage.","citation_analysis":[{"citated_case_name":"Digil v. Sub Inspector of Police","citation_number":"2013(1) KLT 600","treatment":"Distinguished","explanation":"Pre-MMDR Act/Rules changes; the Court notes Digil represented the earlier norm of Rs.25,000 compounding; this norm is not applicable post-2015 amendments and is distinguished."},{"citated_case_name":"Sivakumar v. State of Kerala and Another","citation_number":"2013 KHC 2757","treatment":"Distinguished","explanation":"Also based on older framework; the later MMDR Act and 2015 Rules supersede the earlier compounding standard; hence distinguished."},{"citated_case_name":"Kuriakose v. Sub Inspector of Police","citation_number":"2015 (3) KLT 288","treatment":"Positive","explanation":"Court follows Kuriakose as guiding principle that penalties inform compounding amounts, and directs uniform guidelines accordingly."},{"citated_case_name":"Sreejith Sub Inspector of Police","citation_number":"2015 (3) KLT 986","treatment":"Mentioned Only","explanation":"Cited to illustrate concern about uniformity and government action; the court notes its observations but relies more directly on Kuriakose for guidance."}]},bench_type":"Single Judge"} }]]} }} } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } Inclusive JSON formatting issues? } } } }

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend there is no uniformity in fixation of compounding fees across officers and districts under the MMDR Act and the related Rules. They urge the Court to lay down a uniform, policy-driven set of guidelines reflecting penalties and the statutory framework to deter illegal mining while ensuring due process. They rely on earlier decisions (Digil, Sivakumar) and seek a consistent regime that prevents arbitrary practice and ensures environmental safeguards.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents, represented by the Government Pleader, emphasize that compounding is an available alternative within the MMDR Act and 2015 Rules. They advocate for policy-driven guidelines, unifying practice across the State, and acknowledge the need to consult Government authorities to formulate guidelines that respect the penalties and protections under the statute.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Digil v. Sub Inspector of Police	2013(1) KLT 600	Distinguished	Pre-MMDR Act/Rules changes; not applicable after 2015 amendments; court distinguishes Digil’s reasoning.
Sivakumar v. State of Kerala and Another	2013 KHC 2757	Distinguished	Similar pre-2015 framework; court distinguishes based on subsequent amendments.
Kuriakose v. Sub Inspector of Police	2015 (3) KLT 288	Positive	Court follows Kuriakose to treat penalties as the basis for compounding and directs uniform guidelines accordingly.
Sreejith Sub Inspector of Police	2015(3) KLT 986	Mentioned Only	Cited to reflect concern about uniformity and government action; relied upon primarily to acknowledge context rather than to set the operative rule.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against AloSious s/o Joseph v. District Geologist, Department of Mining and Geology, Idukki District; Inspector of Police, Thodupuzha; Law Secretary, Government of Kerala; Principal Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Government of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2016/5TH JYAISHTA, 1938** ## **WP(C).No. 17365 of 2016 (U)** ## **-------------------------------------------** **PETITIONER(S) : --------------------------** **ALOSIOUS, S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 62 YEARS, POONATTU HOUSE, PUTHUPPADY P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT (OWNER OF LORRY BEARING REGISTRATION NO. KL-35-A-9035).** ## **BY ADV. SRI.SEBIN SEBASTIAN** ## **RESPONDENT(S) :** **-----------------------------** **1. THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, IDUKKI DISTRICT 685 594.** **2. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT 685 594.** ## *** ADDITIONAL R3 & R4 IMPLEADED** **3. THE LAW SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **4. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** *** ADDITIONAL R3 AND R4 ARE SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER JUDGMENT DATED 26.05.2016.** ## **BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.C.K.SHERIN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-05-2016, ALONG WITH W.P(C).NO.17109 OF 2016 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** Msd. **WP(C).No. 17365 of 2016 (U)** **------------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MAHASSAR DATED 09.05.2016 PREPARED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 16.03.2016 IN W.P(C).NO.10192/2016.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :** ## **NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A.TO JUDGE.** Msd. ## **K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.** ## **=====================** **W.P.(C) Nos.17365-U, 17109-K, 17219-B, 17318-L, 17350-P, 17353-T, 17380-V, 17449-E, 17466-G, 17661-G, 17674-H, 17719-L, 17728-M, 17729-M, 17730-M, 18089-I, 18174-V, 18382-W, 18397-Y of 2016** **============================ Dated this the 26[th] day of May, 2016** ## **J U D G M E N T** Considering the fact that identical issue has been raised a number of times before this Court, W.P.(C) No.17365 of 2016 is taken as the lead case and the Law Secretary, Government of Kerala, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram and the Principal Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Government of Kerala, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram are suo motu impleaded. The learned Government Pleader is directed to take notice. The said Officers are impleaded only since the observations made in **Kuriakose Vs. Sub Inspector of Police (2015 (3) KLT 288),** **2** W.P.(C) Nos.17365 of 2016 U and connected cases regarding framing of guidelines for compounding offences under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for brevity 'MMDR Act) the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 (for brevity 'KMMC Rules) and the Kerala Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining Storage and Transportation Rules, 2015, (for brevity Transportation Rules) have been treated with abject levity and indifference by the Government, and there is necessity of issuing positive directions. 2. The above batch of writ petitions project a disturbing factor of the very same issue having been agitated in a batch of writ petitions; on the 5[th] consecutive occasion. Initially, the matter was considered by this Court in **Digil** v. **Sub Inspector of Police [2013(1) KLT 600]** and then **Sivakumar** v. **State of Kerala and Another [2013 KHC 2757]** , wherein this Court had directed compounding of offences on payment of Rs.25,000/- and consequential release of vehicles seized. At that point of time the MMDR Act and the Minor Mineral Concession **3** W.P.(C) Nos.17365 of 2016 U and connected cases Rules, 1967 (Kerala) (for brevity 'Rules of 1967) provided for a penalty respectively upto a maximum of Rs.25,000/- and Rs. 5,000/-; with or without imprisionment. The above norm of compounding being directed on payment of Rs.25,000/- was consistently being followed by this Court; when drastic changes were brought in the MMDR Act and the Rules of 1967 were superseded by KMMC Rules and the Transportation Rules both of 2015; the latter in accordance with the amendments made to the MMDR Act. 3. Again a batch of writ petitions were heard by this Court in **Kuriakose(supra).** This Court had noticed the concern of the Central and State Governments, in bringing out effective measures to curb large scale mining and quarrying operations without proper, licenses and permits , detrimentally affecting the environment, by providing for more stringent and deterrent punishment. This Court by the aforesaid judgment had also considered the general principles behind the provision for **4** W.P.(C) Nos.17365 of 2016 U and connected cases compounding to find that, the provision in the MMDR Act and both the Rules of 2015 granted an unbridled power to the Officers who were competent to initiate a prosecution; at that time: the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Police Officers. This Court directed the Government to consider remoulding of the compounding provision so as to avoid allegations of arbitrary exercise of power by the different officers, having jurisdiction in different areas within the State. 4. This Court had specifically noticed the contention of the petitioners that there was gross disparity; in the compounding provisions being applied by the various officers in various parts of the State and that this was a major cause for and source of corruption. This Court hence made certain observations regarding the need to provide guidelines in applying the compounding provision; in the Rules itself, with reference to the penalty provisions. The Registry was also directed to send a copy of the judgment to the Law Secretary **5** W.P.(C) Nos.17365 of 2016 U and connected cases and the Principal Secretary of Department of Industries. Nothing transpired and hence the present batch of writ petitions. 5. **Kuriakose (supra)** found that the penal provision is the guidance inbuilt in the statute to decide upon the amounts/fees required to be paid for compounding offences. In that view of the matter with respect to goods vehicles carrying sand, which were detained by the authorities, it was directed that compounding of offences shall be made on payment of Rs.50,000/- together with double the amount of royalty and double the price of the mineral as determined by the Geologist on an assessment of the maximum quantity that could be transported in the goods vehicle. The said direction was with reference to the penalty provision contained in the Act and the Rules. Para 15 & 16 are extracted herein below: “15. In determining the said issue, it is to be noticed that the penalty as indicated in the MMDR Act speaks of imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and fine which may extend to Rs.5,00,000/-. A second offence, after the conviction of the first, imposes a further **6** W.P.(C) Nos.17365 of 2016 U and connected cases penalty in sub-section (2) of Section 21, which is to be provided under the Rules. A vehicle, tool, equipment or any other thing used in extraction or transportation of the mineral is liable for seizure under sub-section (4) of Section 21, by orders of the Court taking cognizance under sub-section (4A). In addition to the above, when the said intercepted mineral is raised/quarried without any lawful authority, then the Government could recover from the offender the price of the mineral, if disposed of, as also the rent, royalty or tax, as the case may be, for the period during which the land was occupied. 16. Stringent provisions of penalty is imposed as per the Act and the Rules, which the offenders seek to escape from on payment of the maximum fine alone, which, at the earlier point of time was Rs.25,000/- as per the Act. Now, the fine which could be imposed on a conviction is up to Rs.5,00,000/- coupled with imprisonment, for a term extending up to 5 years. The proviso to the provision for compounding restricting the compounding fee to the maximum fine, is not applicable at all to the MMDR Act and even to the Rules, when there is a possibility of imprisonment. It is in this context that the seizure and subsequent release on compounding has to be examined”. **7** W.P.(C) Nos.17365 of 2016 U and connected cases 6. With respect to the JCB's seized at the time of excavation, it was directed that the compounding fees shall be Rs.75,000/-. A higher amount was provided for JCB's since the said equipment/vehicle had a higher value and in saving a confiscation the compensation/compounding should be higher. The aforesaid writ petitions were disposed of by judgment dated 26.06.2015. It is disturbing to note that after almost an year, the Government has not thought it fit to look into the judgment or take any action thereon. This Court had specifically directed learned Government Pleader to get instructions from the Government, upon which it is submitted that the Law Secretary had sought the opinion of the Principal Secretary, Industries, which has not been responded to till now. 7. After **Kuriakose (supra)** , the third instance of a batch of petitions reaching this Court; the fourth batch was disposed of v. by a decision reported in **Sreejith Sub Inspector of Police [2015(3) KLT 986]** , wherein another learned Single Judge again **8** W.P.(C) Nos.17365 of 2016 U and connected cases noticed the petitioners' contention that there is no uniformity in fixing the compounding fee. This Court noticed the judgment in **Kuriakose (supra)** and found that the same has to be considered by the Government. The State Government had issued a notification dated 05.06.2015 numbered as G.O(P) No.77/15/ID wherein, the State Government had designated a number of Officers under Section 22 of the MMDR Act. The Officers who seized the vehicles were directed to report the matter to the Geologist of the Revenue District, who was directed to consider the issue of compounding. It was also directed that the compounding fee fixed in each cases should take into account the penalty provision referred to in the Rules. 8. Despite these judgments, it is evident that there is no uniformity as such arrived at since the writ petitions before this Court are unabated. The State also seems to be unconcerned about the loss caused to its exchequer and the detrimental effect it has on the environment. The direction to bring in uniformity **9** W.P.(C) Nos.17365 of 2016 U and connected cases insofar as the compounding provisions are concerned has been neglected by the Government. This Court would not issue contempt proceedings at this stage only since there is no . positive direction in **Kuriakose (supra)** 9. Considering the entire issue and also relying upon the principles behind the provision for compounding as an alternative against penal proceedings and also relying on the specific direction in **Sreejith (supra)** to decide on the compounding fee taking into account the penalty provisions of the Act and the Rules, this Court is of the opinion that it is expedient that the Government bring in guidelines and in the interregnum there should be definite guidelines laid down by this Court as to the compunding fees to be levied; based on the penal provisions in the Act and the Rules. 10. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in the leading case would contend that the Transportation Rules by Rule 29 provides for penalty as in sub-section(2) of Section 21 **10** W.P.(C) Nos.17365 of 2016 U and connected cases of the Act, which does not take in the value of the minerals or the royalty, which would be leviable only when extraction is made for which provision is made under sub-section(5) of Section 21 of the Act. However, it cannot be said that on detection of an offence under either of the Rules it is not one under the Act. The penalty, on prosecution would take in the penalty provided under the Act and the Rules. When illegal transportation is alleged then it would necessarily be on account of illegal extraction. Transportation of minerals without lawful authority also entails seizure of vehicle (sub-section (4) of Section 21) confiscation (sub-section (4A) of Section 21) and the value of the minerals, rent royalty and tax (sub-section (5) of Section 21). Sub-rule (2) of Rule 108 of the KMMC Rules also provides for recovery of value of the minerals raised illegally and the royalty amounts due thereat. 11. In any event, even if the offence alleged is under the Transportation Rules alone, the maximum penalty would be **11** W.P.(C) Nos.17365 of 2016 U and connected cases Rs.5,00,000/-. When the maximum penalty provided by the Rules of 1967 was Rs.5,000/-, and that under the Act was Rs.25,000/- this Court in **Digil** and S **ivakumar** (supra) imposed a compounding fee of Rs.25,000/- at the maximum of the penalty under the Act and five times that under the Rules. 12. In such circumstance, this Court does not find any reason to deviate from the compounding fees fixed in **Kuriakose (supra)** . The petitioners shall approach the concerned Geologist as directed in **Sreejith (supra)** , as notified under Section 22 of the Act and compounding shall be permitted for goods vehicles at an amount equal to double the value of the goods transported along with double the value of the royalty plus Rs.50,000/-. For the JCB's seized, the compounding shall be levied at Rs.75,000/-. 13. The Government is directed to look into the issue with respect to providing guidelines for making uniform the levy of compounding fee as directed in **Kuriakose (supra)** , within a **12** W.P.(C) Nos.17365 of 2016 U and connected cases period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The Principal Secretary, in the shall ensure that the fee as interregnum compounding prescribed by this Court is communicated to all the Officers notified under Section 22 of the Act and till guidelines are brought out, the compounding fee would be levied only as laid down herein. It is made clear that on the Rules providing for sufficient guidelines to ensure uniformity, the amounts as directed by this Court would have no effect. 14. It is also clarified that the Government need not feel bound by the amounts now specified by this Court while bringing out guidelines since this Court had fixed the amount of Rs. 50000/- and Rs. 75,000/- as the earlier prescription was Rs.25,000/-. The Government could specifically take into account the maximum penalty now leviable under the Act and Rules and fix any higher amount at its wisdom. The confiscation of the vehicle, the value of minerals, rent, royalty and tax are all in **13** W.P.(C) Nos.17365 of 2016 U and connected cases addition to the penalty of fine up to a maximum of Rs.5,00,000/coupled with imprisonment. The Government should also to take care to avoid gross misuse of the compounding provisions when repeated commission of offence is noticed. Deterrence being the norm the provisions have to be stringent. 15. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.17219 of 2016 contends that a reading of the mahazar would indicate that none of the goods vehicles seized had sand, loaded in them nor was there even an allegation that the JCB seized was excavating sand from the location. The learned Counsel hence would argue that the release of the vehicle would have to be made unconditionally. However, it is to be noticed that the specific prayer made in the writ petition is for compounding the offence. If the petitioner has a contention that there is absolutely no evidence which would incriminate him, the petitioner would be entitled to prosecute the matter and defend the case before the appropriate Court. However, when compounding is sought, it is **14** W.P.(C) Nos.17365 of 2016 U and connected cases not for this Court to look into whether there is any evidence and decide on unconditional release of vehicles. The provision of compounding is an alternate mode made available to the accused, alleged with commission of any offence to pay compensation to the State and wriggle out of the penal provisions and prosecution proceedings. If that is to be availed, it has to be under the provisions of the Act and Rules, which provides for compounding. Hence there is no warrant for a different view to be taken in the above case. 16. W.P.(C).17661 of 2016 is also said to be distinct from the other writ petitions. The facts reveal that the petitioner's vehicle was seized for violation of the provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. The petitioner's specific contention was that the sand transported was not river sand. The petitioner had approached this Court and pursuant to the directions in W.P.(C) No.5320 of 2016, sampling was done; which on analysis was found to be **15** ## W.P.(C) Nos.17365 of 2016 U and connected cases beach sand. The same is evident from Exhibit P3. The offence has been registered by Exhibit P2 under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. In such circumstance, the respondents would have to initiate fresh proceedings under the MMDR Act and the Transportation Rules, which provide for compounding of the offence. As of now the petitioner cannot file a compounding application, since no crime has been registered under the Transportation Rules. Faced with the said situation the Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner would avail of the compounding facility To avoid unnecessary delay, especially since the vehicle is in custody, the vehicle shall be released to the petitioner on the petitioner paying an amount of Rs.50,000/- [Rupees fifty thousand only] along with double the value of the goods as assessed by the Geologist and double the amount of royalty. The petitioner shall approach the 3[rd] respondent with the Registration Certificate of the vehicle and the 3[rd] respondent **16** W.P.(C) Nos.17365 of 2016 U and connected cases shall assess the goods carried in the goods vehicle and provide a computation of the value of goods and the royalty payable and permit the petitioner to pay double the said amounts together with Rs. 50,000/-. This shall be done within two weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall pay the amounts directed hereinabove before the 3[rd] respondent and produce a certificate before the 2[nd] respondent, upon which the 2[nd] respondent shall immediately release the vehicle along with the goods. The writ petitions would stand disposed of. The petitioners herein are given three weeks to comply with this order. No Costs. **Sd/K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE** SB/27/05/2016 // true copy // P.A to Judge.