Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 533 (KER)

Joby P D v. District Collector Palakkad

2017-03-16

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, C.T.RAVIKUMAR

body2017
ORDER Anil K. Narendran, J. 1. The review petitioner is the appellant in W.A.No.2358 of 2016, arising out of W.P.(C)No.20960 of 2016. He filed the said writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P3 seizure mahazar dated 10.6.2016 prepared by the Village Officer, Kollangode-II, Palakkad District, the 3rd respondent herein, while effecting seizure of 1,80,000 bricks from his property covered by Ext.P2 deed dated 25.10.2012, situated in Re.Sy.No.24, Block No.11 of Kollangode-II Village in Palakkad District. He has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to release the bricks which were seized vide Ext.P3 seizure mahazar. 2. After considering the rival submissions, the learned Single Judge by a common judgment dated 29.11.2016 dismissed the said writ petition and the connected matters, thereby repelling the challenge made against the seizure of bricks from their property based on the seizure mahazar prepared by the Village Officer. Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of W.P.(C)No.20960 of 2016, the appellant filed W.A.No.2358 of 2016. The said writ appeal was heard along with the connected matters and a Division Bench of this Court, in which one among us [Anil K.Narendran, J.] was a member, dismissed those writ appeals by a common judgment dated 8.2.2016. Seeking review of the judgment of this Court dated 8.2.2016 in W.A.No.2358/2016, the appellant/writ petitioner filed this review petition contending that there is error apparent on the face of record. 3. According to the petitioner, the clay used for the manufacture of bricks seized vide Ext.P3 seizure mahazar was brought from a licensed clay dealer in Thrissur District. Apart from that, the petitioner obtained clay from one Haridas, S/o. Appu, Nenmani, Kollangode, who had obtained valid order from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad for removing earth from his property. Since the petitioner believed that Ext.P1 licence issued by the Kollangode Grama Panchayat alone was required to get back the bricks seized vide Ext.P3 seizure mahazar, he did not produce the Mineral Transit Pass in Form O(A) before this Court, either in the writ petition or in the writ appeal. Therefore, this Court dismissed the writ petition and the writ appeal solely on the ground of non-disclosure of the source of clay used for the manufacture of the bricks. Therefore, this Court dismissed the writ petition and the writ appeal solely on the ground of non-disclosure of the source of clay used for the manufacture of the bricks. Along with the review petition, the petitioner has produced a copy of the Mineral Transit Pass in Form O(A) issued by a clay dealer, namely, Baby Prakasan, dated 22.3.2016 as Annexure A. As the petitioner has already stopped the manufacture of bricks on the expiry of Ext.P1 licence issued by the Grama Panchayat, the mere stocking of bricks already manufactured is in no way violative of the statutory provisions. 4. In the judgment dated 8.2.2016 in W.A.No.2358 of 2016 and connected cases, this Court noticed that, neither in the writ petition nor in the writ appeal, the petitioner had a case that the ordinary clay used for the manufacture of bricks seized vide Ext.P3 seizure mahazar were extracted from other places and transported to his brick kiln on the strength of any valid permit/lease/pass issued under the Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 and the Kerala Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining Storage and Transportation) Rules, 2015. The petitioner had also not disclosed the identity of the person who supplied him the ordinary clay used for the manufacture of such bricks or even the identity of the property from which such clay was extracted by that person. 5. The additional document produced as Annexure A along with the review petition is a copy of the Mineral Transit Pass in Form O(A) dated 22.3.2016, issued by one Baby Prakasan, Nedumparabmil House, Mathilakam P.O., Thrissur District, as authorised by the District Geologist, Thrissur, vide proceedings No.656/15- 16/31/OE/C2/TDO/16 dated 9.3.2016. By the said proceedings, Baby Prakasan was authorised to remove 'ordinary earth' from the property mentioned in Annexure A Mineral Transit Pass. 6. On 7.3.2017, when this review petition came up for admission, the learned Special Government Pleader pointed out that, as per the proceedings of the District Geologist, Thrissur dated 9.3.2016, the above said Baby Prakasan was authorised to remove 'ordinary earth' from the property for the purpose of constructing a building, invoking the provisions under Rule 14(2) of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 and such permission was not for extracting 'ordinary clay' from any property. The learned Special Government Pleader pointed out further that, as per the said proceedings of the District Geologist, Thrissur, Baby Prakasan was not authorised to issue Mineral Transit Pass for transportation of 'ordinary earth' outside Thrissur District. 7. In view of the aforesaid statements made by the learned Special Government Pleader, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw this review petition. 8. After considering the arguments advanced by both the sides, with reference to the pleadings and materials on record, it was prima facie felt that, this review petition is nothing but an abuse of process of court and that, by producing Annexure A Mineral Transit Pass as one issued by a licensed 'clay dealer' for inter-district transportation of 'ordinary clay' from Thrissur District to Palakkad District, a calculated attempt was made by the petitioner to mislead this Court. Further, considering the limited scope of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 it was observed that, the conduct of the petitioner in filing a review petition with an entirely new substratum of issues based on a document like Annexure A has to be deprecated in the strongest terms. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court on 7.3.2017 ordered personal appearance of the review petitioner, before deciding upon the further course of action to be taken in this review petition. Accordingly, the review petitioner was directed to appear in person before this Court on this day and it was made clear that, it would be open to the review petitioner to file affidavit, if so advised, explaining the facts and circumstances. 10. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner appeared in person and filed an affidavit dated 16.3.2017 explaining the facts and circumstances. Though the petitioner would contend that the ordinary earth covered by Annexure A Mineral Transit Pass was used for the manufacture of the bricks seized, the said contention is devoid of merits in view of the specific case of the petitioner in Ground B of the writ petition that, the petitioner is not excavating clay from his property and he is manufacturing bricks by purchasing clay from outside the area of the Grama Panchayat. According to the petitioner, some factual errors crept in while drafting the review petition and so permission was sought for to withdraw the review petition. According to the petitioner, some factual errors crept in while drafting the review petition and so permission was sought for to withdraw the review petition. The petitioner was not aware that the permit holder in Annexure A Mineral Transit Pass was not permitted to supply minor mineral outside Thrissur District. The petitioner, who is personally present before this Court, has tendered unconditional apology and has filed an affidavit to that effect dated 16.3.2017. 11. In Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Haryana, (1995) 3 SCC 757 , the Apex Court held that filing of false affidavits or making false statement on oath in courts aims at striking a blow at the Rule of Law and no court can ignore such conduct which has the tendency to shake public confidence in the judicial institutions because the very structure of an ordered life is put at stake. It would be a great public disaster if the fountain of justice is allowed to be poisoned by any one resorting to filing of false affidavits or giving of false statements and fabricating false evidence in a court of law. 12. In Muthu Karuppan v. Parithi Ilamvazhuthi, (2011) 6 SCC 496 the Apex Court expressed the view that filing of a false affidavit should be effectively curbed with a strong hand. In Sciemed Overseas Inc. v. BOC India Ltd., 2016 (1) SCALE 264 , the Apex Court observed that though the observation in Muthu Karuppan's case (supra) was made in the context of contempt of court proceedings, the view expressed must be generally endorsed to preserve purity of judicial proceedings. 13. As held by the Apex Court in the decisions referred to supra, making false statement on oath in court, which aims at striking a blow at the Rule of Law, should be effectively curbed with a strong hand. Taking into consideration the unconditional apology tendered by the petitioner who is personally present in court, we are of the view that any permission to withdraw this review petition can be granted only on payment of costs. Though this is a fit case in which the petitioner can be imposed with exemplary cost, taking a lenient view, we permit the petitioner to withdraw this review petition on payment of a cost of Rs.5,000/-. 14. Though this is a fit case in which the petitioner can be imposed with exemplary cost, taking a lenient view, we permit the petitioner to withdraw this review petition on payment of a cost of Rs.5,000/-. 14. Accordingly, this review petition is dismissed as withdrawn on payment of a cost of Rs.5,000/- to the Kerala Legal Services Authority, within a period of three weeks from this day. In case of any default in payment of cost, it would be open to the Kerala Legal Services Authority to recover the said amount from the petitioner by initiating revenue recovery proceedings. The Registry shall communicate a copy of this order to the Member Secretary, Kerala Legal Services Authority forthwith.