High Court Kerala High Court

Johnson vs District Collector on 25 March, 2010

Kerala High Court
Johnson vs District Collector on 25 March, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 32046 of 2009(A)


1. JOHNSON, S/O.RAJAPPAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD.
                       ...       Respondent

2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :25/03/2010

 O R D E R
                      T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
                   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
            W.P.(C) Nos. 32046/2009-A & 32072/2009-D
                   - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
              Dated this the 25th day of March, 2010.

                                 JUDGMENT

These two writ petitions challenge the orders passed by the District

Collector, whereby the District Collector imposed fine of Rs.50,000/- on

the respective petitioners for the alleged violation of the provisions of

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 for

transporting sand. The petitioners’ case in both these writ petitions are

identical. Both these cases involve transportation of sand from

Gopalapuram in Tamil Nadu, on 17.10.2009. It was for one Shri Abdul

Rahiman. It is pointed out that they remitted the required cash amount to

Rajendra Traders Branch Office in Gopalapuram. Documents have been

produced as Exts.P2 to P4 in both the writ petitions. They have remitted tax

at the commercial tax check post in Kerala. The vehicles were seized by the

Sub Inspector of Police, Kasaba Police Station, Palakkad alleging illicit

transportation of river sand from Tamil Nadu, against the provisions of

Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act,

2001 and crime was also registered. It was contended that there is no illegal

transportation of river sand. Later, they moved the District Collector in the

wpc32046 & 32072 /2009 2

matter and final orders were passed by imposing a fine of Rs.50,000/- each.

2. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit and the petitioners

have filed reply affidavits also.

3. The petitioners have filed separate applications,

viz.I.A.No.42441/2010 in W.P.(C) NO.32046/2009 and I.A. No.4229/2010

in W.P.(C) No.32072/2009 seeking for a direction to the District Collector

to reconsider the matter in the light of the documents produced along with

the affidavit. It is pointed out there in that the Government as per G.O.(MS)

No.161/09/ID dated 14.12.2009 permitted import of sand by private

operators. It is also pointed out that in the light of the above Govt. Order,

the District Collector has ordered for release of vehicles seized under

similar circumstances. Copies of the orders have produced along with the

applications.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed in the writ petitions by the

Junior Superintendent attached to the office of the District Collector. But in

the light of the claim raised now based on subsequent developments, the

matter will have to be considered by the District Collector as it is pointed

out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that vehicles carrying sand

from other States have been released by the District Collector without

imposing any fine like the one imposed against the petitioners. Therefore,

wpc32046 & 32072 /2009 3

the request made by the petitioners for a reconsideration will be gone into

by the District Collector in accordance with law.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Govt.

Pleader. I have not considered anything on the merits in view of the prayer

now made by the petitioners.

6. In the light of the prayer now made by the petitioners, the writ

petitions are disposed of as follows:

There will be a direction to the District Collector to consider and

pass orders on Ext.P12 in both the writ petitions after hearing the

petitioners, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment. The contention raised by the petitioners based on the various

orders produced along with the writ petition, will be considered.

Appropriate orders will be passed in accordance with law. No costs.

(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)

kav/