All the aforesaid cases relate to a seizure effected and crime registered on violation of the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act, 1957 [for brevity, the MMDR Act]. The petitioner in WP(C) No.19275 of 2015 is the registered owner of an LMV Excavator having registration No.KL-41-C-3383. One Ajith was the driver of the excavator. The petitioner in WP(C) No.19292 of 2015 is the registered owner-cum-driver of LGV Tipper bearing registration No.KL-41-6203. The petitioner in WP(C) No.19255 of 2015 is again the owner-cum-driver of the LGV Tipper bearing registration No.KL-40-A-4799. They were all involved in Crime No.998/2015 of the Kothamangalam Police Station, which was converted as CC No.885 of 2015 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kothamangalam.

2. The petitioners were before this Court seeking release of their vehicles. At that time since the issue of compounding was pending consideration before this Court, interim orders were passed in all the above writ petitions on 26.06.2015 for release of the vehicles on deposit of Rs.50,000/- each and on surrendering the original Registration Certificate before the respondent. It is not clear as to what the petitioner in WP(C) No.19275 of 2015 did.

3. With respect to the petitioners in the other two writ petitions, who are the owner and driver of the respective vehicles, they took a short cut and approached the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kothamangalam and pleaded guilty and also obtained release of the vehicles. The learned Senior Government Pleader brought the aforesaid fact to the notice of this Court and this Court called for a report from the Magistrate as to why the confiscation was not made under the MMDR Act by order dated 23.11.2016. The Magistrate reported that she was not made aware of the orders passed by this Court directing release of the vehicles on payment of Rs.50,000/-. After the petitioners pleaded guilty, vehicles seized were also released on executing a bond of Rs.3 lakhs with solvent sureties. On directions being issued from this Court, the learned Magistrate has informed the Registrar [Subordinate Judiciary] by letter dated 04.01.2017, that the vehicles bearing Registration Nos.KL-41-6203 and KL-40-A-4799 were repossessed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had pleaded guilty only since there was practice of releasing the vehicles. It is to be emphasised that this practice is against the specific provision for penalty as contained in the MMDR Act. The MMDR Act by Section 21 provides for penalties. Sub-section (1) provides for punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees per hectare. Sub-section (2) confers power on the rule making authority to prescribe such punishment for contravention of the Rules and in case of a continuing contravention impose additional fine extending to Rs.50,000/- for each day of continuance of contravention. Sub-section (3) provides the procedure by which a trespasser, who does so in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 4, is evicted. Sub-section (4) provides in the event of raising or transporting of any mineral without any lawful authority, for seizure of such mineral or tool, equipment, vehicle or any other thing used for such illegal extraction. Sub-section 4(A) relevant for the instant case, speaks of confiscation of the items seized, by an order of the Court competent to take cognizance of the offence under sub-section (1) and the disposal in accordance with the directions of such Court.

5. In the present case, the petitioners had come up before this Court specifically undertaking that they are ready to compound the offence and in such circumstance, the release of the vehicles were ordered on deposit of Rs.50,000/-. After agreeing to compound the offence and obtaining an order of release, the petitioners thought it fit to approach the Jurisdi