IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 25TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 3RD ASWINA 1931 WA.No. 2124 of 2009 -------------------------------- AGAINST ORDER DATED 27.7.2009 IN RP 732/2009 IN WPC.13102/2009 .................... APPELLANT/REVIEW PETITIONER: -------------------------------------------------- ANIL KRISHNAN, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, RESIDING AT KRISHNA VILASOM, OMALLOOR VILLAGE & P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH RESPONDENTS/WRIT PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. G.ANIL KUMAR, PROPRIETOR, A & K EARTH MOVERS, CHIKKANELPUTHEN VEEDU, MANGARAM MURI, KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVT.OF KERALA SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT.OF KERALA, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (SOUTHERN RANGE), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KONNI. R2 TO R5 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R. Bannurmath, C.J. & A.K. Basheer, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No. 2124 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of September, 2009 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. This Writ Appeal is at the instance of the review petitioner who is admittedly a stranger to the writ petition. The appellant contended in the Review Petition that the judgment was liable to be reviewed since some fundamental and relevant issues were not considered by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment. 2. The grievance highlighted by the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 in the writ petition was that his vehicles carrying river sand from Tamil Nadu were being arbitrarily detained by the Revenue and police authorities, even though requisite documents were obtained for such transportation. The learned Single Judge after referring to the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in Ext.P7 judgment held that the writ petitioner was entitled to carry on his business so long as it was done lawfully and without violating WA No.2124 of 2009 -:2:- any statutory mandates. 3. The above direction issued by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment was sought to be reviewed by the appellant in the review petition. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, perused the impugned judgment and available materials on record. As rightly noticed by the learned Single Judge the writ petitioner was only permitted to carry on his business in a lawful manner without violating any statutory mandates contained in the relevant Acts/Rules governing the field. The learned Judge had also referred to Ext.P7 judgment which was rendered by the Apex Court in a case arising from an identical situation wherein transportation of sand from Tamil Nadu was being prevented by the Revenue and Police Authorities on the plea that such import could not be had. The Apex Court in Ext.P7 observed thus: “The appellant, in our view, has every right to trade in the State of Kerala subject to the restrictions imposed in keeping with Article 304. Conversely, the State of Kerala and its authorities will also be entitled to impose restrictions as contemplated under Article 304 of the Constitution, but again WA No.2124 of 2009 -:3:- subject to the right of the appellant to question the same in accordance with law. As the matter now stands, the appellant cannot be prevented from bringing its goods into the State of Kerala lawfully. In that view of the matter, we allow the appeal, set aside the orders passed by both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court and direct that the appellant's vehicles should not be detained at the border check post in Kerala, except in accordance with law. (emphasis supplied by us)” 5. Having carefully considered the observations made by the learned Single Judge and having perused the materials available on record we find no reason to interfere with the order by the learned Single Judge in the Review Petition. There is no merit in any other contentions raised by the appellant. The Appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. S.R. Bannurmath, Chief Justice. A.K. Basheer, Judge. ttb WA No.2124 of 2009 -:4:-