IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 1156 of 2011(T)
1. MANU , AGED 38 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. BIJU R.,
Vs
1. THE GEOLOGIST, MINING AND GEOLOGY
... Respondent
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
For Petitioner :SRI.JOBI JOSE KONDODY
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :31/01/2011
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO.1156 OF 2011(T)
--------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 31st day of January, 2011
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner claims that on the strength of Exts.P1 and P2
dealers licence, he had stocked various types of sand which are
reflected in Exts.P3 and P4 stock register. It is stated that his
premises were inspected on 10.1.2011 and the stock was seized
by the police. It is stated that despite having produced Exts.P3
and P4 and requested for release of the stock, the respondents
insisted on removing the stock from the licensed premises and it
is in this circumstances the petitioner has approached this court
by filing the writ petition.
2. When the case came up for admission before this court
on 13.1.2011, an order was passed directing the Government
Pleader to obtain instruction in the matter. It was also directed
that the stock shall not be removed and the petitioner shall also
not appropriated the same. Today when the matter came up, on
instructions the Government Pleader submits that, though the
licence of the petitioner entitled him only to stock ordinary sand,
the stock available on site was river sand. It is stated that it was
WPC.No. 1156/2011
:2 :
therefore that proceedings were initiated against the petitioner
under the Kerala Protection of River Bank and Regulation on
Removal of Sand Act and Crime No.36/2011 of Vaikom Police
Station has been registered. It is also reported that the matter has
been reported to the Additional First Class Magistrate Court,
Vaikom and that a report has been made to the Revenue
Divisional Officer, Palai.
3. Irrespective of the claim made by the petitioner on the
strength of Exts.P1 and P2 that the stock kept by him is
legitimate, from the submissions made by the Government
Pleader, it is obvious that proceedings have been initiated under
the aforesaid Act. Now that the same has been done, it is for the
petitioner to appear before the Statutory authorities, contest the
matter and abide by the orders that are to be passed by them.
With that liberty the writ petition is closed.
4. However, taking note of the case of the petitioner that
the stock kept by him is legitimate, pending such orders it is
directed that the stock seized from the petitioner shall not be
removed and the petitioner shall also not appropriate the stock
until proceedings against him are finalized.
WPC.No. 1156/2011
:3 :
5. It is made clear that it will be open to the petitioner to
produce a copy of the judgment before the Revenue Divisional
Officer,who shall expedite the proceedings.
Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/