High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-07-08Review petition disposed; impugned WP(C) judgme...

Shinto Simon v. District Collector, Collectorate, Painavu; Revenue Divisional Officer, Idukki; Tahsildar, Peerumedu Taluk; Station House Officer, Kumali Police Station, Idukki District

Case / Petition Number:RP No. 1025/2020; WP(C) No. 2774/2020

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Alexander Thomas
Judgment Date: 2021-07-08
Court Decision / Holding: The impugned judgment dated 24 February 2020 in WP(C) No.2774/2020 stands recalled. The writ petition is dismissed, but with liberty to the writ petitioner to raise all contentions available in the pending CMA 62/2020 before the District Court against the confiscation proceedings.
Final Disposition: Review petition disposed; impugned WP(C) judgment recalled; writ petition dismissed with liberty to pursue contentions in pending CMA 62/2020 against confiscation proceedings.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Shinto Simon

Respondents

District Collector, Collectorate, Painavu, IDUKKI
Revenue Divisional Officer, IDUKKI
Tahsildar, Peerumedu Taluk, IDUKKI
Station House Officer, Kumali Police Station, IDUKKI

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Lathaesh Sebastian

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Saigi Jacob Palatty, Sr. Government Pleader

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a review petition against the order in WP(C) No.2774/2020, filed by the petitioner Shinto Simon challenging a previous writ judgment(s) of this Court. The review petitioners (District Collector and others) sought recall of the judgment dated 24 February 2020, contending that the court had proceeded on a factual premise that no confiscation proceedings had been initiated in respect of the seized vehicle before the acquittal judgment. It is stated that confiscation proceedings were in fact initiated by the Revenue Department’s Recovery and Disposition Officer (RDO) on 29 August 2014, well before the acquittal judgment dated 29 November 2017 in the relatedSummary Trial case. The matter invokes Ajith Kumar v. District Collector, Alappuzha, which is cited to support the proposition that authorities do not have jurisdiction to continue seizure or initiate confiscation proceedings if such steps were not initiated prior to the acquittal judgment. The respondents concede that the petitioner learned of the confiscation after the 2020 judgment and that CMA 62/2020 challenging the confiscation had been filed. The court recalls the impugned judgment and dismisses the writ petition, but with liberty for the petitioner to raise all contentions in the pending appeal against the confiscation proceedings. The judgment thus coordinates the separate tracks of confiscation and criminal proceeding under the applicable statute.

Provisions of Law Cited

Sec. 23C of the Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Confiscation proceedings are separate from criminal proceedings; authorities must initiate confiscation before acquittal to retain jurisdiction
Ajith Kumar v. District Collector, Alappuzha – cited as authority for the rule regarding pre-acquittal initiation of confiscation

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner argues that the impugned WP(C) judgment was predicated on a false factual premise by assuming no confiscation proceedings were initiated. It is alleged that confiscation proceedings were already initiated by the RDO on 29 August 2014, prior to the acquittal on 29 November 2017, and that the challenge to confiscation was already been pursued via CMA 62/2020. The appeal contends that the confiscation and criminal proceedings are distinct and that the court should recall the judgment to permit contesting the confiscation in the pending CMA. The failure to disclose the confiscation order and the later filing of CMA 62/2020 are highlighted as material omissions.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that confiscation proceedings had indeed been initiated (29 August 2014) and thus the impugned judgment requires recall. They point to the separation of confiscation proceedings from criminal trials and argue that the writ petition was aware of the confiscation, having challenged it through CMA 62/2020. After acknowledging these facts, the court is urged to recall the 2020 decision and allow the independent challenge of confiscation in the pending CMA.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ajith Kumar v. District Collector, Alappuzha	2018 (4) KHC 280	Positive	Cited as authority for the proposition that confiscation/seizure cannot be continued and confiscation proceedings cannot be initiated if they were not commenced before the acquittal judgment.

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 Shinto Simon v. District Collector, Collectorate, Painavu; Revenue Divisional Officer, Idukki; Tahsildar, Peerumedu Taluk; Station House Officer, Kumali Police Station, Idukki District 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 ALEXANDER THOMAS** **THURSDAY, THE 8[TH] DAY OF JULY 2021 / 17TH ASHADHA, 1943** **RP NO. 1025 OF 2020** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).NO.2774/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 IN WP(C):** - **1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, PAINAVU, IDUKKI-685 603.** - **2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, IDUKKI, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 603.** - **3 THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, PEERUMEDU TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 501.** - **4 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KUMALI POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 509.** **BY SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER** ## **RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN WP(C):** **SHINTO SIMON, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.SIMON, THUNDIYIL HOUSE, CHELLARKOVIL P.O., ANAKKARA, IDUKKI DISTRICT.** **BY ADVOCATE SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN** **THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **THURSDAY, THE 8[TH] DAY OF JULY 2021 / 17TH ASHADHA, 1943** **WP(C) NO. 2774 OF 2020** ## **PETITIONER:** **SHINTO SIMON, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. SIMON, THUNDIYIL HOUSE, CHELLARIKOVIL P.O. ANAKKARA, IDUKKI DISTRICT.** ## **BY ADV SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, PAINAVU, IDUKKI 685 603.** - **2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, IDUKKI, IDUKKI DISTRICT 685 603.** - **3 TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, PEERUMEDU TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT 685 501.** - **4 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KUMALI POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT 685 509.** ## **SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, SR.GOVT.PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. -------------------------------------------------------- R.P. No. 1025 of 2020 _{arising out of impugned judgment dated 24.2.2020 in WP(C).No. 2774 of 2020}_ ## & W.P.(C) No. 2774 of 2020 -------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 8[th] day of July, 2021 ## COMMON ORDER / JUDGMENT The afore captioned review petition has been filed by the District Collector and others seeking for review and recall of the impugned judgment dated 24.2.2020 rendered by this Court in WP(C).No.2774/2020 filed by the respondent herein/writ petitioner. 2. Heard Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the review petitioners/respondents 1 to 4 in the WP(C) and Sri.Latheesh Sebastian, learned counsel appearing for the respondent herein/writ petitioner. 3. The impugned judgment was rendered by this Court on 24.2.2020 in this WP(C) on the factual assumption as if no confiscation proceedings was initiated in relation to the seized vehicle of the petitioner before the rendering of the acquittal R.P. No. 1025/2020 & W.P.(C) No. 2774/2020 ..4.. judgment dated 29.11.2017 rendered by the learned Magistrate in the Summary Trial case. In decisions of this Court as in _**Ajith Kumar v. District Collector, Alappuzha, [2018 (4) KHC 280]**_ it has been held that the authorities do not have jurisdiction to continue with the seizure of the vehicle any longer and they cannot competently initiate confiscation proceedings , if they have not initiate confiscation proceedings before the rendering of the acquittal judgment by the criminal court concerned . 4. Now it is pointed out by the learned Senior Government Pleader on the basis of instructions that as a matter of fact, confiscation proceedings were already passed by the RDO in respect of the seized vehicle of the petitioner as early as on 29.8.2014, which is much prior to the rendering of acquittal judgment dated 29.11.2017. On this premise, the learned Senior Government would also point out that the abovesaid crucial and relevant factual aspect of the matter, could not be brought to the notice of this Court by the respondents in the WP(C), and that the judgment is thus liable to be recalled. 5. Further it is pointed out by the learned Senior R.P. No. 1025/2020 & W.P.(C) No. 2774/2020 ..5.. Government Pleader that, it is well established that confiscation proceedings of a seized vehicle as well as criminal proceedings are separate proceedings, and that in the instant case, since confiscation proceedings has already been passed before the rendering of the acquittal judgment by the criminal court, the impugned judgment rendered by this Court in this WP(C) is liable to be recalled. 6. Sri.Latheesh Sebastian, learned counsel appearing for the respondent herein/writ petitioner would fairly submit that it is true that, after the rendering of the judgment dated 24.2.2020 in WP(C), the writ petitioner could come to know about the confiscation proceedings have been passed, and that the writ petition has already challenged the said confiscation proceedings by filing Civil Miscellaneous Appeal CMA 62/2020 before the District Court, Thodupuzha, under the provisions of Sec.23C of the Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. 7. Accordingly, it is ordered that the impugned judgment rendered by this Court on 24.2.2020 in the above WP(C) will R.P. No. 1025/2020 & W.P.(C) No. 2774/2020 **==> picture [19 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** stand recalled. Further, it is also ordered that the writ petition will stand dismissed, but with liberty to the writ petitioner to raise all contentions available to him in the pending appeal filed against the confiscation proceedings. With these observations and directions, the above Review Petition will stand disposed and the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand dismissed with abovesaid liberty. Sd/ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE MMG R.P. No. 1025/2020 & W.P.(C) No. 2774/2020 ..7.. ## **APPENDIX OF RP.NO. 1025/2020** **PETITIONERS ANNEXURE:** **ANNEXURE I** **TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B5-377/2014 DATED 29.08.2014.** R.P. No. 1025/2020 & W.P.(C) No. 2774/2020 ..8.. ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C).NO.2774/2020** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS** |**EXHIBIT P1**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION**| |---|---| ||**CERTIFICATE OF THE VEHICLE BEARING NO.**| ||**KL-37A-7705.**| |**EXHIBIT P2**|**TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED**| ||**29.11.2017 IN S.T. NO. 234/2016 GRAMA**| ||**NYAYALAYA, AZHUTHA, PEERUMEDU WITH**| ||**ENGLISH TRANSLATION.**| |**EXHIBIT P3**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE**| ||**PETITIONER SUBMITTED BEFORE THE**| ||**RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 DATED 14.03.2018**| ||**WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.**|