Back
High Court of Kerala
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. BHAVADASAN
Abdu Rahiman
Versus
The District Collector & Another
W.P.(C) Nos.26073, 15151, 15247, 15580, 17171, 17172, 17187, 18189, 22425, 25730, 25750, 25763, 25867, 25879, 25882, 25950, 25952, 25962, 26191, 26243, 26255 and 26478 of 2009
Decided on : 29-09-2009
Practice and Procedure - Jurisdiction - Petitioner is owner of a goods autorickshaw, said vehicle was seized by Tahsildar - Vehicle was, at relevant time, transporting river sand from one work site to another work site - Tahsildar reported matter to first respondent, District Collector said respondent by order, ordered to pay an amount for release of vehicle - Petitioner aggrieved by said order according to petitioner, his vehicle could be confiscated or he should be called upon to pay value of vehicle in lieu of confiscation, only after successful prosecution before competent criminal court - Whether a Single Bench can ignore a judgment rendered by a Division Bench on the premise that the same is stayed by the Appellate Court - Held, Judicial discipline and propriety demands that a Bench of two learned Judges should follow a decision of Bench of three learned Judges - But if Bench of two Judges is so very incorrect that in no earlier judgment of three learned Judges is so very incorrect that in no circumstances can it be followed, proper course for it to adopt is to refer matter before it to Bench of three learned Judges setting out, as has been done here, reasons why it could not agree with earlier judgment - If, then Bench of three learned Judges also comes to the conclusion that the earlier judgment of a Bench of three learned Judges is incorrect, reference to a Bench of five learned Judges is justified - Power of District Collector to order confiscation and lack of power on the Judicial Magistrates to entertain applications for interim custody - The said declaration of law should prevail until it is unsettled by Full Bench of this Court or by Apex Court or by legislative intervention - Single Judges are, therefore, bound to follow decisions in Abdul Samad (supra) and Moosakoya (supra) - Order accordingly.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The case involves a dispute over the seizure of a goods autorickshaw transporting river sand, and the legality of the order requiring payment for vehicle release (!) (!) .
The legal question centers on whether a single judge can ignore a decision made by a division bench, especially when that decision is stayed by the appellate court, and the importance of following hierarchical judicial discipline and precedents (!) (!) (!) .
The court emphasizes that decisions of higher benches, such as division benches or constitutional benches, are binding on lower courts and judges, even if such decisions are stayed or appealed, unless explicitly overturned or overruled by a larger bench or legislative action (!) (!) (!) .
The importance of adhering to the doctrine of precedent and the hierarchical judicial system is underlined, asserting that disobedience or disregard for binding precedents undermines legal certainty and judicial discipline (!) (!) .
The court discusses the procedural aspects of seizure under the relevant statute and rules, highlighting that seizure procedures are to be followed as per the statutory provisions, which do not require filing reports before a magistrate or involving criminal courts unless specified (!) (!) .
The decision underscores that even when there is a conflict between decisions, the proper course is to refer the matter to a larger bench rather than ignoring or overruling binding precedents, maintaining the integrity and consistency of legal rulings (!) (!) .
The court reiterates that judicial discipline and respect for higher judgments are essential for maintaining the credibility and predictability of the legal system, and that individual judges or benches should follow established precedents unless there are compelling reasons to seek clarification or review through appropriate procedural channels (!) (!) (!) .
The court clarifies that the present proceedings do not involve a detailed examination of individual merits but are focused on the procedural correctness and adherence to binding legal principles and precedents (!) .
It is made clear that the court's role is to interpret the law as it stands and that lower courts and judges must follow the established hierarchy and decisions of higher benches unless explicitly overturned, to preserve judicial discipline and legal certainty (!) (!) (!) .
The court concludes that the decisions of the division bench should be followed until they are unsettled by a larger bench or legislative intervention, and that the individual petitions should be processed as per the directions in the relevant case law, with the possibility for parties to seek interim relief (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or assistance.
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The above Writ Petitions were posted before the Division Bench, based on an order of reference made by the learned Single Judge, noticing the apparent conflict between the decisions of this Court in Ahammed Kutty v. State of Kerala, 2008 (1) KLT 1068 and Shoukathali v. Tahsildar, 2009 (1) KLT 640.
2. Before referring to the legal contentions raised for our resolution, we will briefly refer to the facts of W.P.(Civil) No.26073 of 2009, which is treated as the main case, for the purpose of referring to the Exhibits and facts. The petitioner is the owner of a goods autorickshaw, KL-10Z/7736. The said vehicle was seized by the Tahsildar, Ernad Taluk on 7.7.2009. The vehicle was, at the relevant time, transporting river sand from one work site to another work site. The Tahsildar reported the matter to the first respondent, District Collector. The said respondent by Ext.P1 order, ordered to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) for release of the vehicle. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the Writ Petition is filed. According to the petitioner, his vehicle could be confiscated or he should be called upon to pay the value of the vehicle in lieu of confiscation, only after a successful prosecution before the competent criminal court. In support of that submission, he mainly relies on the decision of this Court in Ahammed Kutty v. State of Kerala, (supra). When the respondents resisted the said prayer pointing out the decision of another learned Single Judge in Shoukathali v. Tahsildar, (supra), the Writ Petition, as mentioned earlier, was referred to the Division Bench.
3. We heard the learned counsel, Sri. Babu S.Nair, and Sri.Jamsheed Hafiz, for the petitioners. We also heard the learned Advocate General, Sri.C.P.Sudhakara Prasad and the learned Government Pleader Sri.T.B.Hood, appearing for the State. The point that is vehemently canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, the offence under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001, being a cognizable offence, once information regarding the commission of the same is lodged, the Station House Officer is bound to register a Crime and investigate the same. Simultaneously, he has to file a report regarding the seizure of the vehicle before the Judicial Magistrate concerned under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If that be so, the learned Magistrate will be competent to order release of the vehicle under Sections 451 or 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Division Bench in Abdul Samad v. State of Kerala, 2007(4) KLT 473 = Alavi P.K. v. District Collector and Others, ILR 2004 (4) Ker. 221 and Moosakoya v. State of Kerala, 2008(1) KLT 538, failed to consider properly the impact of Section 24 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001, which makes all offences under the said Act cognizable. So, the decision of the learned Single Judge in Ahamed Kutty (supra) refusing to follow the decision in Abdul Samad v. State of Kerala, lays down the correct legal position and the same has to be followed, it is submitted. In other words, the decision in Shoukathali v. Tahsildar, (supra), which follows Abdul Samad (supra) and Moosakoya (supra), does not lay down the correct legal position, it is pointed out.
4. But, we notice that, after referring to Section 24, which makes the offences under the Act cognizable and also adverting to Section 25, which deals with cognizance of offences, the Division Bench in Moosakoya v. State of Kerala, (supra) elaborately considered all the aspects of the matter and issued the following directions:
"3. A plain reading of the above provision will show that even though by S.24 all offences under the Act are made cognizable, no court can take cognizance of the offence except upon a written complaint made by a person authorised in this behalf by the Government or the District Collector or a Geologist
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
