IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 22ND MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 811 of 2008(V) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M.M.MATHEW, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.M.J.MATHEW, MANIPPADAM HOUSE, UDAYANAPURAM P.O., VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOBI JOSE KONDODY RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, VAIKOM TALUK OFFICE, VAIKOM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 4. THE GEOLOGIST, MINING AND GEOLOGY DISTRICT OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM-2, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.R.SABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/02/2008, ALONG WITH WPC. NO.1154/2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.811/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE DEALER'S LICENSE DT. 8.10.07 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER VALID UP TO 31.3.08. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE AND THE SKETCH AND PLAN DT. 3.3.07 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER VADAKKEMURI. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DT. 1.10.07 BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT FOR RENEWING HIS DEALER'S LICENSE. EXT.P4;- COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF STATEMENT ACCEPTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT ON 17.12.07. EXT.P5:- COPY OF THE BALNK 'P' FORM ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DT. 17.12.07 WHICH SHOWS THE VALIDITY OF THE SAME UP TO 16.1.08. EXT.P6:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 17.2.06 IN WP(C) NO.3441/06 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE tss. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 811 & 1154 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated: February 11, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioners are sand dealers who are duly licensed by the 4th respondent in terms of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules. Petitioners submit that on 5.1.2008 as part of a mass raid that was conducted, their premises were also raised. According to them the sand which was legitimately collected by them and stored for sale has been seized and was proposed to be auctioned without any notice or complying with the other procedural requirements. It is in the aforesaid context these writ petitions were filed. 2. In WP(C) 1154/08 this court has passed an interim order on 9.1.2008 restraining the respondents from removing the sand which was already auctioned on 7.1.08 from the stockyard of the petitioner. In so far as the sand seized from the petitioner in WP(C) 811/08, the proceedings for auction was stayed by order dated 7.1.2008. WP(C) 811 & 1154/08 Page numbers 3. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the Government Pleader. 4. Counsel for the writ petitioners now submits that although in respect of all others similarly situated persons, the respondents have permitted them to resume business, taking advantage of the pendency of these writ petitions, the petitioners alone are not permitted to carry on their business. 5. Learned Government Pleader on instructions submits that the premises of the petitioners were raided and that action was taken in view of the violations of the provisions contained in the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules and in particular Rule 48(l) thereof. According to the learned Government Pleader the respondents are justified in the action they have taken. 6. As stated by the Government Pleader, if there is a violation of the provisions of Rule 48(l), the 4th respondent is entitled to take such action as is permissible in law. However, any such action has to be expeditiously taken as it would result in depriving the petitioners legitimate right to carry on their business. Therefore, I direct that the 4th respondent shall expedite the action that is WP(C) 811 & 1154/08 Page numbers proposed to be taken against the petitioners and final orders shall be passed with notice to the petitioners and without delay in the matter. 7. The submission of the petitioners that all others against whom similar action has been taken are permitted to resume business also needs to be noticed. If what the counsel for the petitioners submits is factually correct, I am sure that the 4th respondent will be consistent in his approach in so far as the petitioners are concerned. Leaving it open to the 4th respondent to complete the proceedings that are already initiated and reserving liberty to the petitioners to challenge the same if they are ultimately aggrieved , I close these writ petitions. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-