{"id":79233,"date":"2007-01-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-01-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-g-santhosh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-4-january-2007"},"modified":"2015-12-29T15:01:25","modified_gmt":"2015-12-29T09:31:25","slug":"a-g-santhosh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-4-january-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-g-santhosh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-4-january-2007","title":{"rendered":"A.G. Santhosh vs State Of Kerala on 4 January, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
A.G. Santhosh vs State Of Kerala on 4 January, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C) No. 26820 of 2006(P)\n\n\n1. A.G. SANTHOSH, AGED 25 YEARS,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. DILEEP V. RAJAN, AGED 36 YEARS,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA.\n\n3. TAHSILDAR, KOZHENCHERRY.\n\n4. CHENNEERKARA PANCHAYAT,\n\n5. RAJESH KUMAR,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.ESM.KABEER\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE\n\n Dated :04\/01\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                             PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.\n\n                              -------------------------------\n\n                   W.P.(C) Nos. 26820 and 28139 OF 2006\n\n                            -----------------------------------\n\n                    Dated this the 4th   day of January, 2007\n\n\n                                     JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
       The   petitioners   in   WP(C)   No.26820\/06   are   residents   of   the<\/p>\n
Chenneerkara Panchayat, the 4th  respondent in the Writ Petition.   The<\/p>\n
1st  respondent   in   that   case   is   the   State.     Respondents   2   and   3   are<\/p>\n
District   Collector   and   the   Tahsildar     and   the   5th  respondent   is   one<\/p>\n
Sri.Rajesh   Kumar   to   whom   the   right   for   collecting   river   sand   from<\/p>\n
Mathoor Kadavu, within the limits of the 4th  respondent Panchayat was<\/p>\n
given on auction by the 3rd  respondent-Tahsildar.   The petitioners refer<\/p>\n
to Section 218 of the Panchayat Raj Act which provides the right over<\/p>\n
the   rivers   flowing   through   the   Panchayat   are   vests   in   the   Panchayat.<\/p>\n
Accordingly any income collected by way of sale of sand from the rivers<\/p>\n
or otherwise is the income of the Panchayat and reference in this regard<\/p>\n
is made through the Kerala Protection of River Banks & Regulation of<\/p>\n
Removal of Sand Act, 2001.  Petitioners refer to Rule 29 Sub Rule 3 of<\/p>\n
the Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Rules<\/p>\n
and   submit   that   while     conducting     sand   auction,   the   availability   and<\/p>\n
requirement of sand in that area shall be taken into account and such<\/p>\n
auction shall be conducted in the presence of Secretaries and Members<\/p>\n
of the concerned Local Authority and Tahsildar of that area and prices of<\/p>\n
WPC Nos.26820 & 28139 of 2006<\/p>\n
                                               2<\/span><\/p>\n
sand   shall   be   fixed   after   taking   into   consideration     the   expenses   for<\/p>\n
loading   sand   into   the   vehicle   and   also   the   labour   charge   for   sand<\/p>\n
removal.   It is pointed out that the very basis of such provisions in the<\/p>\n
Rule is to fix the sand price by the Municipal authorities and to prevent<\/p>\n
the   successful   bidders   from   selling   sand   above   the   price   fixed.     The<\/p>\n
petitioners refer to Sub Rule 2 of Rule 29 which provides that the District<\/p>\n
Expert Committee shall fix the quantity available for extraction and shall<\/p>\n
be sold after paying the royalty by collecting the entire quantity of such<\/p>\n
sand on river banks.  Petitioners also refer to Clause (g) of Sub Rule 1<\/p>\n
of Rule 29, which provides that in the case of removal of sand jointly by<\/p>\n
Panchayat,   the   amount   is   to   be   equally   divided   after   deducting   the<\/p>\n
royalty to Mining and Geology Department, wages to workers and share<\/p>\n
towards River Management Fund and ancillary expenditure.   Petitioner<\/p>\n
refers to other provisions also including Rule 15 which provides for the<\/p>\n
powers   of   the   Kadavu   Committee   in   the   matter   of   fixation   of   price   of<\/p>\n
sand   in   respect   of   particular   Kadavu.     Petitioner   also   refers   to   the<\/p>\n
preamble   of   the   Kerala   Protection   of   River   Banks   and   Regulation   of<\/p>\n
Removal   of   Sand   Act,   2001   and   submits   that   in   spite   of   the   various<\/p>\n
regulatory   measures   noticed   by   the   said   Act   and   Rules   therein   the<\/p>\n
respondents who are vested with authority to permit sand collection are<\/p>\n
not   keeping   any   limits   in   the   matter   of   fixation   of   price   for   the   sand.<\/p>\n
They   contend   that   even   though   there   is   fixation   regarding   price   at<\/p>\n
Rs.2,000\/- in the auctions held in many places prices are going beyond<\/p>\n
WPC Nos.26820 & 28139 of 2006<\/p>\n
                                              3<\/span><\/p>\n
double   the   above   limit.     On   account   of   such   price   fixation   there   is   a<\/p>\n
tendency among bidders to exploit the river in a large scale.  Though the<\/p>\n
quantity permitted is very little, when stringent measures were taken to<\/p>\n
prevent such exploitation the bidders are selling the sand at exceedingly<\/p>\n
higher   rates.     Petitioner   submits   that   the   3rd  respondent   conducted<\/p>\n
auction of the right to collect river sand from Mathoor Kadavu in respect<\/p>\n
of Chenneerkkara Panchayat was given at a price of Rs.6,500\/-.  Ext.P1<\/p>\n
is the auction notice.  Petitioner submits that in this auction, the price of<\/p>\n
river   sand   was   fixed   at   Rs.6,500\/-   and   the   right   to   extract   sand   was<\/p>\n
purchased by the bidder for a total amount of Rs.3,07,613\/-.   The daily<\/p>\n
collection   quantity   being   six   loads   and   the   period   allowed   to   the<\/p>\n
Contractor being 12 days, the price paid by the Contractor for 72 loads<\/p>\n
will comes to Rs.3,07,613\/-.  Even without taking into account the labour<\/p>\n
charges   for   collection   and   transportation   charges,   the   burden   of   a<\/p>\n
purchaser   for   one   load   of   river   sand   will   be   around   Rs.7,000\/-   and<\/p>\n
Ext.P2 receipt for payment of money is relied on by the petitioner in this<\/p>\n
regard.  Petitioners claim that they are local residents who are who want<\/p>\n
to  construct  their   own  building.    They  are  from  the   down trodden  and<\/p>\n
weaker section of the community and are deeply aggrieved by the illegal<\/p>\n
action of the respondents in conducting auction by fixing the sand price<\/p>\n
as high as Rs.7,000\/-.  When such a sand price is fixed and that too by<\/p>\n
the   conduct   of   auction   at   such   a   higher   price,   the   Contractor   will   be<\/p>\n
tempted   to   extract   river   sand   illegally   and   the   same   will   affect   the<\/p>\n
WPC Nos.26820 & 28139 of 2006<\/p>\n
                                            4<\/span><\/p>\n
ecology and environment.  It is these evil effects which are sought to be<\/p>\n
prevented   by   incorporating   statutes   and   by   forming   the   Rules.<\/p>\n
Thereafter   the   petitioner   contend   that   the   auction   now   confirmed   in<\/p>\n
favour of the 6th  respondent for such a high price has to be set aside.<\/p>\n
Pointing   out   all   the   relevant   aspects,   Ext.P3   representation   was<\/p>\n
submitted   by   the   petitioners   before   respondents   2   to   4.     Those<\/p>\n
respondents are sleeping over Ext.P3 and steps are taken for carrying<\/p>\n
out river sand collection.  Petitioners have also produced receipt issued<\/p>\n
by   the   respondents   for   a   sum   of   Rs.28,584\/-in   favour   of   one   Sri.Ajith<\/p>\n
Kumar, for 60 loads of river sand as Ext.P4.  From Ext.P4, it is seen that<\/p>\n
the   sand   collected   from   another   Kadavu   is   below   Rs.500\/-.     Thus<\/p>\n
between Kadavu, inter se there is such a disparity between prices and<\/p>\n
therefore   the   price   of   river   sand   from   Mathoor   Kadavu   is   per   se<\/p>\n
exorbitant.  Petitioners then submit that more than 50% of the people of<\/p>\n
Chenneerkara Panchayat are below the poverty line and they construct<\/p>\n
their   houses   by   utilising   grants   given   by   the   Panchayats.     Normally<\/p>\n
these grants will be for amount upto Rs.10,000\/- and when one load of<\/p>\n
sand is costing Rs.7,000\/- it is not possible for any of the poor people to<\/p>\n
carry out any construction at all.  Making all these averments, petitioners<\/p>\n
pray to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to set<\/p>\n
aside the auction of the right to collect river sand from Mathoor Kadavu<\/p>\n
of   Chenneerkkara   Panchayat   at   a   total   price   of   Rs.3,07,613\/-   be<\/p>\n
quashed and to issue a mandamus to the Panchayat and Tahsildar to<\/p>\n
WPC Nos.26820 & 28139 of 2006<\/p>\n
                                               5<\/span><\/p>\n
conduct   auction   by   fixing   the   maximum   price   upto   which   the   auction<\/p>\n
should be conducted by taking the value of sand with all  expenses at<\/p>\n
less   than   Rs.2,000\/-   per   load   of   river   sand   and   also   not   to   conduct<\/p>\n
auction   if   the   price   exceeds  the   said   limit.     The   further   relief   which   is<\/p>\n
prayed   for   in   this   Writ   Petition   is   a   writ   of   mandamus   directing<\/p>\n
respondents   2,   3   and   4   to   consider   Ext.P3   representation   and   take   a<\/p>\n
decision thereon at the earliest and no to permit river sand collection till<\/p>\n
a decision is taken on Ext.P3.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        2.  WP(C) No.28139 of 2006 is filed by Sri. Rajesh Kumar, the 5th<\/p>\n
respondent in WP(C)No.  26820 of 2006. The  respondents in this Writ<\/p>\n
Petition   are   the   State,   the   District   Collector,   the   Tahsildar   and   the<\/p>\n
Panchayat.     Ext.P1   produced   in   this   case   is   the   very   same   auction<\/p>\n
notice   issued   by   the   3rd  respondent   Tahsildar,   auction   for   the   right   to<\/p>\n
collect river sand from various kadavus of the Panchayat.  The petitioner<\/p>\n
belongs   to   Scheduled   Caste   and   is   a   person   having   no   independent<\/p>\n
employment   and   therefore   he   participated   in   the   auction   held   as   per<\/p>\n
Ext.P1   notice   and   since   in   the   said   auction   notice   it   was   not   stated<\/p>\n
anywhere   that   there   should   be   limit   regarding   the   collection   quantity.<\/p>\n
Accordingly   he   purchased   the   right   in   the   auction   for   collecting     river<\/p>\n
sand from  Mathoor Kadavu for a total amount of Rs.3,07,613\/-.  But at<\/p>\n
the time of execution of agreement he was told that he will be permitted<\/p>\n
to collect only 72 lorry loads of river sand during the said period and at<\/p>\n
that time he submitted a petition before the 3rd  respondent stating that<\/p>\n
WPC Nos.26820 & 28139 of 2006<\/p>\n
                                              6<\/span><\/p>\n
he was not been informed of the maximum number of lorry loads that<\/p>\n
can  be  collected.   He   requested  to   reduce   the   price   to   Rs.2,000\/-   and<\/p>\n
permit   him   to   collect   river   sand   for   such   quantity   as   applicable   to   the<\/p>\n
total amount actually remitted by him if the price is calculated at the rate<\/p>\n
of Rs.2,000\/-.  Ext.P2 dt.13.10.06 is copy of that petition.  Ext.P3 is copy<\/p>\n
of   the   receipt   issued   by   the   respondents   against   the   remittance   of<\/p>\n
Rs.3,07,613\/-.  Petitioner submits that the local residents are very much<\/p>\n
against the auction of the right to collect river sand for such a high price<\/p>\n
for  such   a  short  period.    He submits   that  the  local   residents  had  filed<\/p>\n
complaints  about  the   exorbitant  price  and  Ext.P4  produced  along  with<\/p>\n
the writ petition is copy of such petition.(In WP(C) No.26280\/06 this is<\/p>\n
produced as Ext.P3).   Petitioner submits that even a public notice was<\/p>\n
issued   by  the   residents  of   the  locality  seeking   to  reduce   the  prices  of<\/p>\n
river   sand   and   Ext.P5   is   copy   of   the   said   public   notice   dt.13.10.06   in<\/p>\n
which it is threatened that unless the price of river sand is reduced, the<\/p>\n
public   will   go   in   for   adjudication.     The   petitioner   has   then   produced<\/p>\n
Ext.P6   copy   of   the   interim   order   passed   in   WP(C)   No.26820\/06.<\/p>\n
Petitioner   submits   that   no   sand   mining   activity   was   conducted   by   the<\/p>\n
petitioner or other purchasers since there was heavy rain.  In the case of<\/p>\n
the   petitioner   he   was   awaiting   orders   on   the   petition   for   reduction   of<\/p>\n
price.  He is a poor Harijan and it was through bank borrowings that he<\/p>\n
could remit the amount previously and he is unable to participate in the<\/p>\n
subsequent auction since he has no resources.   The 3rd  respondent is<\/p>\n
WPC Nos.26820 & 28139 of 2006<\/p>\n
                                                7<\/span><\/p>\n
now   proceeding   to   conduct   auction   for   the   subsequent   period.<\/p>\n
Therefore the petitioner again filed a petition not to conduct auction and<\/p>\n
for   fixing   the   price   of   Rs.2,000\/-   and   the   right   to   collect   river  sand   be<\/p>\n
given  to him by fixing the number of lorry loads which can be collected<\/p>\n
per   day.     Ext.P7   is   the   representation.     On   these   averments   the<\/p>\n
petitioner has raised various grounds and pray that a writ of mandamus<\/p>\n
be issued commanding the Panchayat as well as the 3rd respondent not<\/p>\n
to conduct auction of the right to collect river sand from Mathoor Kadavu<\/p>\n
of Chenneerkkara Panchayat for subsequent period commencing from<\/p>\n
1.11.06   and   for   a   further   writ   of   mandamus   commanding   the<\/p>\n
respondents to fix the value of river sand as provided under Rule 29(3)<\/p>\n
(a) and (b) of the Act No.18 of 2001 and to direct the Panchayat and the<\/p>\n
3rd  respondent to conduct auction of the right if necessary by fixing the<\/p>\n
limit   of   auction   at   the   rate   fixed.     Petitioner   also   prays   for   a   writ   of<\/p>\n
mandamus   to   collect   river   sand   from   Mathoor   Kadavu   at   the   rate   of<\/p>\n
Rs.2,000\/-   per   load   and   by   appropriating   and   adjusting   the   amount<\/p>\n
already   deposited   and   by   permitting   him   to   collect   river   sand   till   the<\/p>\n
entire  amount is adjusted  by extending the  period  of collection.    Later<\/p>\n
the petitioner has produced copy of my judgment in WP(C) 34799\/2005<\/p>\n
wherein   I   had   disposed   of   that   Writ   Petition   directing   the   District<\/p>\n
Collector   to   expedite   and   finalise   the   refund   proceedings   initiated   for<\/p>\n
refund   of   that   portion   of   the   bid   amount   which   is   refundable   to   the<\/p>\n
petitioner in that case.   It was in respect of another Kadavu within the<\/p>\n
WPC Nos.26820 & 28139 of 2006<\/p>\n
                                              8<\/span><\/p>\n
limits of another Panchayat.  On the basis of that judgment the petitioner<\/p>\n
filed IA No.117 of 2007 praying that respondents be directed to refund<\/p>\n
the security amount under deposit or else to permit him to collect river<\/p>\n
sand at Rs.400\/- per load.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        3.   In   WPC   No.26820   of   2006   the   3rd  respondent   Tahsildar   has<\/p>\n
filed  a   statement.     This   statement   was  filed   as   directed  by  me.       It   is<\/p>\n
stated   therein   that   the   Government   as   per   Circular   NO.1731\/P1-<\/p>\n
04\/Revenue  dt.01.02.2005   issued   necessary   directions   and   guidelines<\/p>\n
to the Tahsildar for conducting public auction of the available quantity of<\/p>\n
river sand based on the parameters suggested by the Expert Committee<\/p>\n
for   Earth   Science   Studies,   Centre   for   Water   Resources   Development<\/p>\n
and Management etc.   A meeting of the District Expert Committee was<\/p>\n
held   under   the   District   Collector,   Pathanamthitta   on   03.10.06.     The<\/p>\n
meeting   decided   to   authorize   the   Tahsildar,   Kozhencherry   to   conduct<\/p>\n
public auction to collect the river sand from the various Kadavus of the<\/p>\n
Achankovil river.  Annexure R3(1) is copy of that report.  On the basis of<\/p>\n
the   decision   taken   as   reported   in   Annexure   R3(1)   public   auction   was<\/p>\n
conducted   on   11.10.06   for   sale   of   six   loads   of   river   sand   per   day   as<\/p>\n
done in the previous year also after giving adequate publicity in the local<\/p>\n
dailies,   notice   Board   of   the   Taluk   Office,   Village   Office   and   the<\/p>\n
respective   Kadavu   and   the   Panchayat   Secretary   also   attended   the<\/p>\n
auction as requested by the 3rd  respondent.   The averment that it was<\/p>\n
the 2nd respondent who fixed the price of sand at Rs.2,000\/- per load is<\/p>\n
WPC Nos.26820 & 28139 of 2006<\/p>\n
                                              9<\/span><\/p>\n
denied as it is totally incorrect.  None of the respondents have fixed any<\/p>\n
price.     The   Tahsildar   conducted   the   public   auction   of   the   available<\/p>\n
quantity of river sand based on the parameters suggested by the Expert<\/p>\n
Committee   consisting   of   Centre   for   earth   Science   Studies,   Centre   for<\/p>\n
water Resources Development and Management etc. as per the Circular<\/p>\n
dt.1.2.2005.     A   copy   of   the   Circular   is   produced   as   Annexure   R3(d).<\/p>\n
After   the   auction   50%   of   the   sand   value   is   given   to   the   concerned<\/p>\n
Panchayats.     It   became   necessary   to   conduct   public   auction   only<\/p>\n
because   no   price   was   fixed   by   the   Kadavu   Committee.     Petitioner’s<\/p>\n
apprehension regarding illegal extraction of sand is unwarranted since<\/p>\n
special squads under the supervision of the Revenue – Police Officers<\/p>\n
have been constituted for taking appropriate action.   As far as Mathoor<\/p>\n
Kadavu is concerned the right to collect sand was given at a total price<\/p>\n
of Rs.3,07,613\/- which constitutes the sand value as Rs.4060\/- per load,<\/p>\n
Royalty Rs.50 per load and sales tax Rs.4% per load.     Being a public<\/p>\n
auction,   competition   is   common.     The   bidders     compete   among<\/p>\n
themselves,   as   a   result   of   which   the   bid   amount   goes   up.     The<\/p>\n
respondents   are   not   responsible   for   the   increase   in   price.     It   is   then<\/p>\n
pointed   out  that   the   auction   purchaser,   Sri.Rajesh   refused   to   sign   the<\/p>\n
agreement of the Tahsildar.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        4.   The   5th  respondent,   Sri.Rajesh,   has   filed   a   detailed   counter<\/p>\n
affidavit   reiterating   the   grounds   that   he   has   raised   in   his   Writ   Petition<\/p>\n
No.28139\/06 as ExtR5(a).   He has produced a copy of the promissory<\/p>\n
WPC Nos.26820 & 28139 of 2006<\/p>\n
                                              10<\/span><\/p>\n
note executed by him in the context of raising of funds for the purpose of<\/p>\n
making   the   remedies.     Ext.R5(b)   produced   by  him   is   the   first   page  of<\/p>\n
SSLC certificate.   This is produced to show that he belongs to Kurava<\/p>\n
Community.  Kurava is a Scheduled Caste.  Ext.R5(c) produced by him<\/p>\n
is a petition dt.13.10.06 submitted before the District Collector.   Ext.R5<\/p>\n
(d)   is   copy   of   the   public   notice   issued   by   the   local   public   under   the<\/p>\n
leadership  of  Janakeeya Samithi    against the  exorbitant  price  payable<\/p>\n
for   the   river  sand.   Ext.R5(e)   is   copy  of  agreement   executed.    He   has<\/p>\n
incurred expenses by taking country boats on hire.     According to him,<\/p>\n
the   price   of   river   sand   in   the   other   Kadavus   will   come   to   less   than<\/p>\n
Rs.2,000\/- in respect of 60 lorry loads by which the royalty amount will<\/p>\n
come only less than Rs.500\/-.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        5. The Panchayat which is the 4th respondent in 26280 has filed a<\/p>\n
detailed counter affidavit.  The Panchayat in its counter affidavit refers to<\/p>\n
WP(c)   No.6632\/1996   filed   by   four   petitioners   therein   for   preventing<\/p>\n
removal   of   the   sand   from   the   Achankovil   river   passing   through   the<\/p>\n
territory of the 4th respondent Panchayat.  In that Writ Petition, this Court<\/p>\n
passed Ext.R4(a) judgment on 9.9.97.  In Ext.R4(a),  the Panchayat was<\/p>\n
the   3rd  respondent.     The   Panchayat   was   allowed   under   Ext.R4(a)   to<\/p>\n
collect sand from the river subject to the directions of the Government<\/p>\n
and the District Collector.  The Panchayat was collecting and selling the<\/p>\n
river sand from the kadavus within its  jurisdiction as permitted in Ext.R4<\/p>\n
(a).   While so, the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of<\/p>\n
WPC Nos.26820 & 28139 of 2006<\/p>\n
                                           11<\/span><\/p>\n
Renewal of Sand Act 2001(Act 18 of 2001) came into force with effect<\/p>\n
from 15.4.02.  The Rule now in force is in effective from 4.5.03.  The 4th<\/p>\n
respondent was collecting and selling sand as per the provisions of the<\/p>\n
Act   under   the   Rule   with   the   necessary   sanction   from   the   concerned<\/p>\n
authorities and committees paying   the royalty     and other dues.   The<\/p>\n
procedure was in force up to 31.3.95.  But on 1.4.95 onwards it is the 3rd<\/p>\n
respondent who is directly auctioning the right to collect river sand on<\/p>\n
the   basis   of   the   Government   Circular   No.71731\/P1\/2004\/Revenue<\/p>\n
dt.1.2.05.        The   2nd     respondent   issued   Circular   No.C9\/6502\/05<\/p>\n
dt.31.10.05.   This Circular is produced by the Panchayat as Ext.R4(b).<\/p>\n
Ext.R4(b)   has   been   issued   to     the   4th  respondent-Panchayat.     Under<\/p>\n
Ext.R4(b), the Panchayat was directed to  sign and seal  passes issued<\/p>\n
by   the   Tahsildar   for   transportation   of   sand.     Such   direction   is   being<\/p>\n
obeyed by the 4th respondent.  The Tahsildar is  paying the share of the<\/p>\n
sand realised to the Panchayat.  In the counter affidavit, the Panchayat<\/p>\n
contends that as per the Act and Rules it is the Panchayat which has the<\/p>\n
right to  arrange  collection and sale of river sand on payment of royalty<\/p>\n
and share          due to River Management Fund.  Section 12(3) of the<\/p>\n
Act and Rule 17(1) (2) of the rules are referred to in this context.   It is<\/p>\n
pointed   out   that   there   is   no   provision   investing   jurisdiction   in   the<\/p>\n
Tahsildar to auction the right to collect the river sand or realise its value.<\/p>\n
Such   right   actually   vests   with   the   Grama   Panchayats.     Ext.R4(b)<\/p>\n
Circular issued by the Government is accordingly contended as without<\/p>\n
WPC Nos.26820 & 28139 of 2006<\/p>\n
                                             12<\/span><\/p>\n
jurisdiction.     The   4th  respondent   submits   that   the   filing   of   the   present<\/p>\n
counter   affidavit   is   without   prejudice   to   the   right   of   the   Panchayat   to<\/p>\n
approach this Court for appropriate reliefs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        6.   The   maintainability   of   the   present   Writ   Petition   is   strongly<\/p>\n
disputed in the counter affidavit of the Panchayat.   It is contended that<\/p>\n
the   petitioners   have   no   locustandi   to   file   the   Writ   Petition.     They   are<\/p>\n
espousing a public cause and not any private interest.  No fundemental<\/p>\n
rights of theirs have been violated.  It is then contended that the attempt<\/p>\n
of  the   petitioner   is  to   protect  the   interest   of  the   5th  respondent-Rajesh<\/p>\n
Kumar.  This attempt will be evident from the materials placed on record<\/p>\n
and the background and the averments and prayers contained in both<\/p>\n
the writ petitions.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        7. As directed by me the Government Pleader has produced the<\/p>\n
auction   diary   and   report   of   Centre   for   Earth   Science   Studies,   Water<\/p>\n
Resources Development and Management   recommending removal of<\/p>\n
six loads of sand per day from Mathoor Kadavu.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        8. Even though Sri. T.M. Abdul Latheef, learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioner   in   WP(C)   26280\/06,   Sri.E.S.M   Kabeer,   counsel   for   the<\/p>\n
petitioner  in WPC  28139\/06, Sri. N. Sugunapalan, learned counsel for<\/p>\n
the   Panchayat   in   both   these   cases   and   the   learned   Government<\/p>\n
Pleader, Mr. Mathew G. Vadakkel, have addressed me very elaborately<\/p>\n
inviting   my   attention   to   all   the   materials   placed   on   record   by   the<\/p>\n
respective parties and the grounds raised in the Writ Petitions,  I am of<\/p>\n
WPC Nos.26820 & 28139 of 2006<\/p>\n
                                              13<\/span><\/p>\n
the view that it is not necessary for this Court to go into the merits of any<\/p>\n
of   the   grounds   raised   or   the   submissions   addressed.     The   period   for<\/p>\n
which the right to collect river sand from Mathoor Kadavu was granted to<\/p>\n
the petitioner in WPC 28139\/06 is already over.  To that extent the WPC<\/p>\n
No.26820\/06 has become infructuous.   The prayer in Ext.P3 is to stay<\/p>\n
the collection of river sand on the strength of the auction conducted in<\/p>\n
favour of Sri.Rajesh and set aside the same in his favour.  I do not find<\/p>\n
any   specific   prayer   made   in   Ext.P3   in   the   context   of   the   grievance<\/p>\n
voiced   in   the   Writ   Petition   regarding   the   fixation   of   price.     That   Writ<\/p>\n
Petition   therefore   will   stand   dismissed.     On   my   scanning   of   the<\/p>\n
materials, it is clear that the petitioners have been espousing the cause<\/p>\n
of Sri.Rajesh,  petitioner  in  WPC  28139\/06.    As for  WPC  No.28139\/06<\/p>\n
also I do not find any warrant for granting the reliefs sought for; but there<\/p>\n
is only one circumstance in his favour for one reason or other he was<\/p>\n
not able to transport even a single lorry load of river sand.  But then he<\/p>\n
himself   is   responsible   for   the   same   because   admittedly   he   was   not<\/p>\n
prepared to execute an agreement.  His claim for refund will certainly be<\/p>\n
considered by the District Collector.   He is permitted to make a proper<\/p>\n
representation   before   the   District   Collector   claiming   refund   of   the<\/p>\n
amount remitted by him and for payment of any other amounts which he<\/p>\n
claims   to   be   due   to   him,     on   account   of   the   loss   which   has   been<\/p>\n
occasioned   to   him   by   way   of   loss   of   interest   or   otherwise   due   to   his<\/p>\n
inability   to   extract   river   sand.     The   District   Collector   will   consider   the<\/p>\n
WPC Nos.26820 & 28139 of 2006<\/p>\n
                                             14<\/span><\/p>\n
same and dispose of the same in accordance with law.  It is made clear<\/p>\n
that   I   have   not   expressed   any   opinion   on   the   merits   of   his   claim   for<\/p>\n
refund of any amount or for payment of amounts in excess of what he<\/p>\n
actually remitted.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        WP(C) No.26820 of 2006 is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\n        WP(C) No.28139 of 2006 is disposed of.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE<\/p>\n
btt<\/p>\n
WPC Nos.26820 & 28139 of 2006<\/p>\n
                                 15<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court A.G. Santhosh vs State Of Kerala on 4 January, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C) No. 26820 of 2006(P) 1. A.G. SANTHOSH, AGED 25 YEARS, … Petitioner 2. DILEEP V. RAJAN, AGED 36 YEARS, Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA, … Respondent 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. TAHSILDAR, KOZHENCHERRY. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-79233","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nA.G. Santhosh vs State Of Kerala on 4 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-g-santhosh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-4-january-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"A.G. Santhosh vs State Of Kerala on 4 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-g-santhosh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-4-january-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-01-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-29T09:31:25+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-g-santhosh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-4-january-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-g-santhosh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-4-january-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"A.G. Santhosh vs State Of Kerala on 4 January, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-01-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-29T09:31:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-g-santhosh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-4-january-2007\"},\"wordCount\":3587,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-g-santhosh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-4-january-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-g-santhosh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-4-january-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-g-santhosh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-4-january-2007\",\"name\":\"A.G. Santhosh vs State Of Kerala on 4 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-01-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-29T09:31:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-g-santhosh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-4-january-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-g-santhosh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-4-january-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-g-santhosh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-4-january-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"A.G. Santhosh vs State Of Kerala on 4 January, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"A.G. Santhosh vs State Of Kerala on 4 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-g-santhosh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-4-january-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"A.G. Santhosh vs State Of Kerala on 4 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-g-santhosh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-4-january-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-01-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-29T09:31:25+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-g-santhosh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-4-january-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-g-santhosh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-4-january-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"A.G. Santhosh vs State Of Kerala on 4 January, 2007","datePublished":"2007-01-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-29T09:31:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-g-santhosh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-4-january-2007"},"wordCount":3587,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-g-santhosh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-4-january-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-g-santhosh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-4-january-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-g-santhosh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-4-january-2007","name":"A.G. Santhosh vs State Of Kerala on 4 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-01-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-29T09:31:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-g-santhosh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-4-january-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-g-santhosh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-4-january-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-g-santhosh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-4-january-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"A.G. Santhosh vs State Of Kerala on 4 January, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/79233","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=79233"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/79233\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=79233"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=79233"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=79233"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}