IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2010 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 33202 of 2010(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- P.V.KUNHIRAMAN, KALLIATT VIA, MAYYIL, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.PRAVEEN KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGODE-671 121. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KASARAGODE-671 121, 4. THE GEOLOGIST, DISTRICT OFFICE, MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, KASARAGODE-671 121. 5. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUMBLA POLICE STATION, KASARAGODE-671 123. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 33202 OF 2010 (A) ===================== Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T 4 Metric Tons of river sand allegedly transported by the petitioner from Goa in a National Permit Truck bearing Regn.No.KA 01 C 8748 was seized by the 5th respondent on 1/10/2010, on the allegation that the same was transported in violation of the provisions contained in the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. It is challenging the said proceedings, the writ petition is filed. 2. Learned counsel contends that the sand being transported from Goa, the provisions of the Act are inapplicable and that the issue is pending consideration of a Division Bench of this Court, which has passed Ext.P5 order. 3. However, even if it is assumed that the aforesaid proceedings are pending before the Division Bench, fact remains that even as per Ext.P2 pass relied on by the petitioner, its validity expired on 30/9/2010. If so, on 1/10/2010, petitioner could not have transported river sand on the strength of Ext.P2 pass. Therefore, prima facie, I am not persuaded to think that the WPC No. 33202/10 :2 : petitioner can challenge the proceedings at this stage in a writ petition before this Court and will have to contest the matter before the 3rd respondent. 4. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. 5. But, if during the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner is desirous of getting interim custody of the vehicle, I leave it open to the petitioner to move the 3rd respondent, in which event, the 3rd respondent shall consider the application of the petitioner in accordance with law. It is made clear that the issue as to whether the Act is inapplicable to the consignment in question is left open to be adjudicated by the 3rd respondent. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp