IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2010 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 20016 of 2009(V) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- THE LORRY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, THRISSUR, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT GIRIJAN, S/O.RAJAN, RESIDING AT KARUVANKAD, KUNDUKAD P.O. THRISSUR. BY ADVS. SMT.AYSHA RAHMAN SMT.B.SHAMEERA SMT.M.SHAZIA SULTHANA SMT.M.ARCHANA RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR. 3. THE ADDITIONAL TAHASILDAR, THRISSUR. 4. THE SECRETARY, DESAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 5. THE SECRETARY, KONDAZHI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 6. THE SECRETARY, THIRUVILWAMALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 7. THE SECRETARY, PANJAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 8. THE SECRETARY, VALLATHOLE NAGAR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, THRISSUR DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.SANIKUMAR R4 BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN R5 BY ADVS. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH SMT.P.JAYALAKSHMI R6, R8 BY ADVS. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN SMT.P.G.BABITHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SVS/ WP(C).No. 20016/2009(V) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE LIST OF SAND TOKEN MANAGEMENT VEHICLE LIST CONTAINING VEHICLE NUMBERS, TYPE, CLASS, OWNER NAME AND ADDRESS ETC. P2: COPY OF THE DECISION BY REFERENCE B NO.7/51851/2008. P3: COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR WITH REF. NO.B7/77010/2008 DATED 27/05/2009. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE svs/ T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.20016/2009-V ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 27th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an association of lorry owners in Thrissur District. They are aggrieved by Ext.P3 order passed by the District Collector wherein their request to modify certain guidelines, provided for transporting river sand from Bharatapuzha as per Ext.P2, has been rejected. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the members of the petitioner's association who are lorry operators are issued with permits under the Motor Vehicles Act by the Authorities concerned. The total membership of the operators is 964 covering the entire District. Ext.P1 is a true copy of the vehicle list of Sand Token Management which contains the numbers of vehicles, class, owners etc.. 2. Later, the guidelines were framed as per Ext.P2 in a meeting Chaired by the District Collector and certain guidelines, according to the petitioner are against the interest of the members of the petitioner's association. Therefore, they filed a representation in the matter for reconsideration of the same. Later this Court, in W.P.(C). No.35866/2008 filed by the petitioner's association, directed the District Collector to pass appropriate orders W.P.(C). No.20016/2009 -:2:- in the matter and, accordingly, Ext.P3 proceedings have been issued by the District Collector. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that condition Nos.8, 9 and 19 really affect the rights of the members of the petitioner's association and even though strong objections were raised before the District Collector, the same have not been reconsidered. It is pointed out that the stipulation in condition No.9 that the vehicles registered with the Panchayat can be utilised for transporting river sand will pave way for other irregularities, especially, at the hands of the Kadavu Supervisor, as he will be having the choice to pick up the vehicles. It is pointed out that, at that juncture, the vehicles of the owners who are members of the petitioner's association will not get sufficient work also. 4. Clause 19 in Ext.P2 is only to the effect that for repair works, sanction will be given only for maximum one load of river sand and I do not find it as a restriction which has got the effect of curtailing transportation of river sand or that it will prevent the members of petitioner's Association from doing business in the District or in the entire State. Evidently, in Ext.P3, all the aspects have been considered by the District Collector. The District Collector has pointed out therein that a non- W.P.(C). No.20016/2009 -:3:- discretionary, transparent, normative programme has been designed for a computer based allocation of sand with the support of National Informatices Centre, under the Government of India. Later, the issue was considered at various stages and as demanded by different labour unions, lorry unions etc.. It is evident from Ext.P3 that different segments wanted to continue the practice adopted as per Ext.P2. It was also pointed out by them that the vehicles plying on urban centres like Thrissur are already getting a lot of other works which are not available to vehicles registered in the rural Panchayats. One of the complaints raised was that the vehicles are charging exorbitant amount, as transportation charges, many time above the original rates, pushing the cost of sand and thus defeating the very objectives of affordable prices. This is one of the aspects considered by the District Collector and I do not find any reason to raise any objection because it only serves larger public interest. It cannot be disputed that the owners of goods vehicles who are members of the Association will be transporting various items apart from river sand. Therefore, it is not a case where they are denied of the fundamental right to earn livelihood. It is pointed out that none of the individual owners are petitioners before this Court and the association cannot W.P.(C). No.20016/2009 -:4:- agitate the rights of any of the individual lorry owners. I find force in the above submission. Apart from that, what is brought in by Ext.P2, which is reiterated in Ext.P3, is that proper system has been introduced with regard to the distribution of river sand and other allied matters like various activities in kadavus in Bharatapuzha. Evidently, various factors leading to the increase of cost of sand have been considered by the District Collector while incorporating the prescribed conditions. At any rate, I cannot understand condition Nos.8, 9 and 19 as acting adversely to the interest of the members of the association, as they are only lorry operators and also of the fact that their rights as lorry operators are not in any way affected. In that view of the matter, none of their rights are curtailed by Exts.P2 or P3. 5. It is also pointed out that the 25% of allocation to the Panchayat is also not justified. The same was recognised in the light of the fact that the local residents will have a meaningful pursuit of economical activity in the matter of extraction of natural resources from their own locality. Further, I do not think that the association or their members can have any grievance with regard to the quota for the Panchayat concerned. In that W.P.(C). No.20016/2009 -:5:- view of the matter, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms