IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 29714 of 2009(H)
1. R.MOHAN KUMAR, AGED 44 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR.
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :30/08/2010
O R D E R
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.P.(C). No.29714/2009-H
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 30th day of August, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner challenges the order of confiscation of
the vehicle, namely, TN-47-S-6061 by the District
Collector. As per Ext.P5 order, the petitioner is directed
to pay a sum of Rs.9,50,000/- failing which the vehicle
shall be auctioned as per the Rules.
2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioner submitted that the petitioner’s lorry was
engaged by one Sri Ganapathi Traders, Palakkad for
transporting river sand from the State of Tamil Nadu to
State of Kerala. Ext.P1 is the invoice and Value Added Tax
was paid by the petitioner in the name of Sri Ganapathi
Traders, Palakkad as per Ext.P2. Ext.P3 is the copy of the
delivery note showing payment of the Kerala Value Added
Tax. Sand was to be delivered at Irinjalakuda for the
customer of Sri Ganapathi Traders, Palakkad. During the
transportation of the same, it was intercepted by the
Circle Inspector, Cherp Police Station and, thereafter, it
was produced before the District Collector. It is pointed
out that the petitioner had purchased the sand from an
authorised dealer of Tamil Nadu. It is pointed out that
there was no allegation that the sand was collected
W.P.(C). No.29714/2009
-:2:-
anywhere within the limits of State of Kerala and,
therefore, the provisions of Section 23 of the Kerala
Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand
Act, 2001 will not apply.
3. In Ext.P5, the District Collector concluded that
the transport of river sand is not a legal one and
therefore, there is violation of Kerala Protection of River
Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. The
District Collected relied upon the Judgment in W.P.(C).
No.3656/2008 to conclude that unless the bills issued by
the Public Works Department of Tamil Nadu are produced, no
other evidence can be accepted.
4. Heard the learned Government Pleader for the
respondents. In the statement filed on behalf of the first
respondent, the allegation is that the petitioner has
violated the provisions of M.M.(D&R) Act. It is also
mentioned that the transportation of river sand was not
allowed from Tamil Nadu to any other State, going by the
Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules with effect from
25/08/2006.
5. Evidently, those are not aspects covered by the
impugned order passed by the District Collector as per
Ext.P5.
6. The proceedings for confiscation really requires a
proper adjudication of the matter in the light of the
W.P.(C). No.29714/2009
-:3:-
provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and
Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. The question is
whether any provision of the said Act is attracted to the
facts situation here. There is no allegation evidently
that the sand was collected from any of the rivers in
Kerala. The further question therefore, is whether the
transportation from Tamil Nadu is correct or not. The
learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is prepared to adduce further evidence in the
matter if a proper opportunity is given.
7. In the light of the fact that the matter requires
a proper consideration after allowing the petitioner to
adduce further evidence in the matter, Ext.P5 is set aside.
There will be a direction to the competent authority to
reconsider the matter in the light of the findings rendered
above. The petitioner can produce further evidence to show
that the import of sand was justified and a fresh order
will be passed by the designated authority within a period
of one month 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.)
ms