IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2011/18TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 13914 of 2010 (L) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. C. CHANDRAKUMAR, S/O.CHELLAPPAN, KIZHAKKEVILA VEEDU,PIDAVOOR P.O., THALAVOOR, PATHANAPURAM,KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. SHANAVAS KHAN, S/O.UMMER RAWTHER, KUNNUVILA PADINJATTATHIL, MULAKKADA, PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM 2. THE PATHANAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,PATHANAPURAM P.O. KOLLAM - 689695. BY STANDING COUNSEL ADV. SRI.N.UNNIKRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-11-2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MG WP(C).No. 13914 of 2010 (L) ----------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE R.C.PARTICULARS OF THE 2000 MODEL TELCO HGV MOTOR VEHICLE BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL-2J-9963 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE R.C.PARTICULARS OF THE 2002 MODEL TATA LMV GOODS CARRIAGE VEHICLE BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL-08W-7296 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE R.C.PARTICULARS OF THE VEHICLE 1999 MODEL DCM TOYOTA LMV GOODS CARRIAGE BEARING REGISTRATION NO:KDE-5573 OF THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE GOODS CARRIAGE PERMIT OF THE 1ST PETITIONER VEHICLE NO:KL-2J-9963. EXT.P5:- COPY OF THE GOODS CARRIAGE PERMIT OF THE 1ST PETITIONER'S VEHICLE NO:KL-08W-7296. EXT.P6:- COPY OF THE GOODS CARRIAGE PERMIT OF THE 2ND PETITIONER'S VEHICLE NO:KDE-5573. EXT.P7:- COPY OF THE NO:L9-10322/2008 DATED 06.02.2008 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P8:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO:A2-3058/2010 DATED 19.03.2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P9:- COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER AGAINST EXT.P8 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P10:- COPY OF THE MASS PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE LORRY OWNERS TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P11:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FORWARDED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 24.03.2010. EXT.P12:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 05.04.2010. EXT.P13:- COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE PATHANAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 19.03.2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R2(A):- COPY OF THE DECISION NO.3 DTD.19.03.2010 OF THE PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE MG C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.13914 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Petitioners are the registered owners of heavy goods vehicles covered under Ext.P1 to P3 Registration certificates and Ext.P4 to P6 goods carriage permits. Grievance of the petitioners is that, the 2nd respondent Panchayat is denying registration for vehicles owned by the petitioners for the purpose of transporting river sand and denying passes for transportation of sand under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act 2001. It is stated that various regulations were introudced for effective implementation of the said Act, with respect to activities of sand mining within Kollam district, from various rivers. Through Ext.P7 proceedings of the District Collector, various conditions were imposed for proper implementation of the Act. Among those conditions it was prescribed to register all vehicles used for W.P.(C).13914/10 -2- transporting river sand, in the respective Panchayats and Corporation. The local self Government institutions within the district was directed to issue passes for transportation of sand, only for registered vehicles. Eventhough the petitioners made applications for registration, the first petitioner was informed by the 2nd respondent that his vehicles will not be registered since he is not a resident of that Grama Panchayat. Eventhough Ext.P9 objection was submitted by the 1st petitioner the Panchayat had adopted Ext.P13 resolution stating that further registration will be granted only to vehicles owned by persons residing within the Panchayat. With respect to the 2nd petitioner the request made under Ext.P12 has not been considered by the Panchayat. Petitioners are assailing the decision taken by the 2nd respondent Panchayat under Ext.P13 on the ground that it is highly discriminatory to reject the registration on the ground that they are not residents of the 2nd respondent Panchayat. 2. In a detailed counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent it is contended that there is only one 'Kadavu' W.P.(C).13914/10 -3- within the limits of the 2nd respondent namely 'Adamkottukadavu' and the sanctioned quantity of the river sand for excavation from the said 'kadavu' is only 12 loads per day. It is stated that already 12 vehicles have been registered in the Panchayat and there is no sufficient collection of sand for transportation by the vehicles already registered. It is also contended that the petitioners have already registered their vehicles with Kalavoor Grama Panchayat, which is situated nearby to the 2nd respondent and there are 3 'kadavus' within the limits of the said Panchayat. Therefore the petitioners have got enough work for their vehicles, is the contention. 3. Considering the rival contentions the only question which arises for consideration is as to whether the 2nd respondent was justified in putting restrictions to the registration of vehicles. I am of the view that it is left open to the 2nd respondent to restrict the total number of vehicles to be registered for allowing transportation of sand based on the availability of sand and the requirement of vehicles. However, I feel that the restriction if any imposed on the W.P.(C).13914/10 -4- basis of residence of the owner of the vehicle is legally unsustainable and it amounts to discrimination and violation of fundamental rights protected under the Constitution of India. Therefore I am of the view that notwithstanding the reasoning mentioned in Ext.P13, the petitioner vehicles shall be registered as and when the Panchayat takes a decision to grant registration for more vehicles, depending on the requirement, subject to fulfilling of other conditions. 4. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent Panchayat to grant registration to the vehicles owned by the petitioners, if the Panchayat takes any decision for registering more vehicles, apart from the 12 vehicles already registered. Such registration shall be given based on the priority of the date of application submitted by the petitioners and others. (Sd/-) C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb True copy P.A to Judge