High Court Kerala High Court

Moideen Kunhi vs State Of Kerala on 20 July, 2010

Kerala High Court
Moideen Kunhi vs State Of Kerala on 20 July, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 16392 of 2010(Y)


1. MOIDEEN KUNHI, S/O.ISMAIL,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. U.POCKER, JASMINE VILLA,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,

3. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,

4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

5. THE GEOLOGIST,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.PRAVEEN KUMAR

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

 Dated :20/07/2010

 O R D E R
                            K. M. JOSEPH &
                     M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
               --------------------------------------------------
                  W.P(C). NO. 16392 OF 2010 Y
              ---------------------------------------------------
                    Dated this the 20th July, 2010

                               JUDGMENT

K.M. Joseph, J.

Petitioners are dealers of minor minerals. Briefly put, the

case of the petitioners is as follows:

The first petitioner has been licensed to stock and sell 2000

metric tones of ordinary sand to the prospective buyers. Ext.P1

licence is valid till 31.3.2011. This was issued under Rule 48A

of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967. The

second petitioner has got similar licence vide Ext.P2 for

stocking and selling 6000 metric tones of ordinary sand. They

carry on the business of selling the sand on the strength of

Exts.P1 and P2. They are paying sales tax to the Government.

Persons who purchase sand from the petitioners have to get

Form P cash memorandum issued under Rule 48 (K) of the

Rules. Exts.P3 and P4 are produced as the cash memorandum to

WPC.NO.16392/2010 Y 2

transport sand from the yard of the petitioners. It is stated that

while so, in April 2010, the fourth respondent seized the vehicle

carrying sand lifted from the first petitioner alleging that the

transportation is illegal. Though the cash memorandum was

shown to the fourth respondent, it was ignored. Alleging

harassment by the Police Officers, the petitioners have

approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

“a) Issue a writ of mandamus to respondents

3 and 4 not to harass the petitioners and their

customers in transporting the sand with valid

document issued under the provisions of the Kerala

Minor Mineral Concession Rules.

b) Declare that the respondents cannot harass

the petitioners and their customers in any manner,

while transporting the sand with valid documents

issued under the provisions of the Rules.”

2. A Statement has been filed by the fourth respondent,

inter alia, stating as follows:

As per Exts.P1 and P2 proceedings, the Geologist issued

the licence to the petitioners on certain conditions. One among

WPC.NO.16392/2010 Y 3

the conditions is that the licensees can purchase and store sand

only from the owners of the quarries who have valid quarrying

permit or quarrying lease. They should obtain valid cash

memorandum in P Form from the producer for each load and

kept it for inspection as and when demanded by the Authorities

as per the provisions of the Rules. But, contrary to the

conditions, the licensees procured sand through illegal means by

using members of sand mafia of Karnataka and Kerala. The

sand is being brought into the State through Konaje, Pathur via,

Kajapadva evading the check post. Export of sand from

Karnataka has been prohibited in Karnataka. If the petitioners

are allowed to store and transport sand illegally taken from

Karnataka, it will lead to competition among the sand mafia

gangs which may cause law and order issues. It is stated that

two cases have been registered. The persons who stored sand in

Manjeshwar area including the petitioners are depending on

these gangs to procure sand in their storing places from

Karnataka State. If the petitioners are purchasing sand from the

WPC.NO.16392/2010 Y 4

owners of permitted quarries, they have right to store and

transport sand. No sand lorries were seized by Manjeshwar

Police having valid documents. Owners of all the seized lorries

have admitted the offence and compounded the offence as per

the provisions of the MMDR Act.

3. Petitioners have filed a Reply Statement. Therein, the

petitioners have produced Ext.P7 which is the copy of the

Government Order dated 14.12.2009. Therein, the Government,

inter alia, has permitted the import of sand from other States.

Learned counsel for the petitioners would further point out that

the petitioners as licensees have been issued with Rule 48(K)

Books and when the petitioners transport the sand, they were

issued with Rule 48 (K) Forms. It is armed with Rule 48 (K)

Forms duly filled in by the petitioners that their customers are

transporting the sand and the petitioners’ customers are being yet

harassed.

4. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the

learned Government Pleader. Learned counsel for the petitioner

WPC.NO.16392/2010 Y 5

would, undoubtedly faced with the fact that export of sand has

been banned in Karnataka State, point out that the petitioners are

importing sand from Gujarath, Maharashtra and Andhra

Pradesh. To this, the learned Government Pleader would

immediately point out that sand from Gujarath and Maharashtra

come via. shipping route supported by proper documents.

5. It is true that by Ext.P7, the Government of Kerala has

issued an Order purporting to encourage import of sand from

other States, apparently in view of the scarcity in the State of

Kerala. But, it is an equally undisputed fact that the State of

Karnataka has prohibited export of sand from its soil.

Therefore, if as contended by the respondents, the sand is being

brought into the State of Kerala from Karnataka, it can only be

described as an illegal act. If the licensee including the

petitioners as licensees, are using Rule 48(K) Forms for the

purpose of sanctifying transport of sand which is illegally

brought from the State of Karnataka, this Court will not lend its

assistance in any form to the petitioners and certainly, the Police

WPC.NO.16392/2010 Y 6

Authorities will be justified in taking action as per law in such

cases. However, needless to say, particularly in view of Ext.P7,

if the petitioners are buying sand which is brought through the

legal means from other States where there is no ban and issue

Rule 48(K) Forms to the customers, certainly the Police

Authorities cannot harass the petitioners or the customers. We

make this position clear. Learned Government Pleader points

out that the dealers will have to maintain Forms M, N and O

under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules. We take

note of the said submission also and dispose of the Writ Petition.

Sd/=
K.M. JOSEPH,
JUDGE

Sd/=
M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS,
JUDGE
kbk. // True Copy //

PS to Judge