IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 10351 of 2010(T)
1. MOHAMMAD HANEEFA, (MOHAMMAD KHANIFA)
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA.
... Respondent
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
3. THE C.I.OF POLICE, MARARIKULAM.
4. THE GEOLOGIST, ALAPPUZHA.
5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
For Petitioner :SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :05/04/2010
O R D E R
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No. 10351 of 2010-T
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 5th day of April, 2010.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the registered owner of a mini tipper lorry bearing
registration No.KL-03-S-4193. The vehicle was used for transporting sand
on 10.12.2009 and Ext.P2 is the copy of the Form P issued under the Kerala
Minor Mineral Concession Rules. The vehicle was stopped by the
Mararikulam police and a crime was registered as Crime No.454/2009 under
Section 17(4) and 23 r/w 20 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and
Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. The third respondent submitted
a report and mahazar before the first respondent for taking appropriate
action in the matter. According to the petitioner, the registration of the
crime itself is illegal, in view of the decision of this Court in Sheriff v. S.I.
of Police, Konni (2010 (1) KHC 388). Ext.P3 is the order passed by the
first respondent to return the vehicle on condition of payment of
Rs.6,20,000/- in an application filed by the petitioner seeking interim
custody. It is submitted that the amount fixed as value of the vehicle is
excessive and unreasonable.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the sand was collected from
wpc 10351/2010 2
Kayal and not from any river and the proceedings under the Sand Act and
Rules cannot be sustained.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Govt. Pleader.
4. It is mainly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no
notice was issued to the petitioner who is the registered owner, before
Ext.P3 order was passed by the first respondent. Accordingly, it is
submitted that as there is a direction to confiscate the vehicle without
hearing the petitioner, the order cannot be supported. It is further pointed
out that the report of the Geologist will show that the sand is not river sand,
but only sand from lake. Therefore, it is contended that the provisions of
the Act cannot apply and no offence is made out for transporting sand from
the lake.
5. Since the petitioner was not heard in the matter, Ext.P3 is quashed.
There will be a direction to the District Collector to pass orders after hearing
the petitioner. The petitioner is entitled to produce all details with regard to
the issuance of Form P. Appropriate orders shall be passed after
considering various aspects including the contention that the provisions of
the Sand Act are not attracted for the transportation of sand from
wpc 10351/2010 3
Kayal/Lake. Orders shall be passed within six weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
kav/