IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 47 of 2008(E)
1. BEENA P.S., W/O.NARAYANAN NAMBIAR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
... Respondent
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUMBLA.
3. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
4. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :07/01/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
------------------------------------
W.P.(C) 47, 450 & 498 of 2008
-------------------------------------
Dated: January 7, 2008
JUDGMENT
In these writ petitions, the petitioners contend that on the
strength of valid permits they have transported sand from
Karnataka. They are also making reference to receipt for payment
of money, issued by the commercial tax department in order to
contend that tax has been paid in respect of the consignment in
question. Despite all these, petitioners submit that the lorries along
with the sand have been seized and are detained by the
respondents. It is also pleaded in WP(C) 47/2008 that without
issuing a notice of hearing to the petitioner, orders have been
passed by the 1st respondent requiring the petitioner to remit
Rs.50,000/- for release of the vehicle. In so far as WP(C) 450/2008
and 498/2008 are concerned, it is stated that orders have not been
passed till date.
2. From the pleadings in this case it is obvious that
petitioners’ lorries have been seized alleging unauthorised
WP(C) 47, 450 & 498 of 2008
Page numbers
transportation of sand in violation of the provisions contained in the
Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act. It
is in view of this that proceedings are pending before the 1st
respondent, exercising power under Rule 27 of the Rules framed
under the said Act.
3. The 1st respondent, exercising power under Rule 27 of the
Rules framed under the said Act, is required to pass orders within
the time fixed therein and such orders can be passed only with
notice to the affected parties. Since the petitioner in WP(C) 47/2008
contends that order has aalready been passed without notice, it
would be only appropriate that the 1st respondent passes fresh
orders with notice to the petitioner. Similarly, in so far as the other
two writ petitions viz. WP(C) 450/2008 and 498/2008 are
concerned, orders have to be passed by the 1st respondent in
terms of Rule 27.
4. Accordingly, I dispose of these writ petitions directing the
1st respondent in these cases, to pass final orders in respect of the
proceedings initiated against the petitioners as expeditiously as
WP(C) 47, 450 & 498 of 2008
Page numbers
possible, at any rate, within two weeks of production of a copy of
this judgment. Before final orders are passed as above, the
respective petitioners will be given an opportunity to be heard and
they will also be permitted to file their objections, if any.
Writ petitions are disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
mt/-