IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 3RD APRIL 2008 / 14TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 9597 of 2008(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ S.MOHANAN, PUTHENKANDATHIL, KADATHOOR P.O., THAZHAVA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, KARUNAGAPPALLY. 3. THE GEOLOGIST, DISTRICT OFFICE, MINING & GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, KOLLAM. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY POLICE STATION, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM. 5. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, KARUNAGAPPALLY. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.C.No.9597 of 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2008 JUDGMENT In this writ petition, the petitioner submits that he is a dealer of sand engaged in the sale of river sand by purchasing river sand from Tamil Nadu. According to him, despite of legal clearances, transportation and resale of river sand from Tamil Nadu is obstructed and therefore, this writ petition has been filed. 2. A similarly situated person had filed a writ petition before this court as WPC No.3656 of 2008 and that case was disposed of by Ext.P6 judgment. In that judgment it was directed as follows: “4. Following the relief that has been granted in the above judgment, I direct that the petitioner herein will also make appropriate application before the District Collector, who shall consider the same and pass orders thereon as indicated above, as early as possible, at any rate within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 5. The learned Government Pleader, referring to the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, WPC 9597/2008 2 1959, contended for the position that unless a pass as contemplated in Rule 36(5)(b) of the said rule is not accompanying the transport, it cannot be presumed that the sand which is brought by the petitioner is legitimately transported. This submission made by the learned Government Pleader is countered by the learned counsel for the petitioner contending that in similar set of facts, judgments have been rendered by the Madras High Court permitting transport of sand from Tamil Nadu provided a bill issued by the Public Works Department of that State to the selling dealer is available. The judgment relied on by the learned counsel is the one rendered by Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in Writ Petition No.1911/2007, the relevant portion of which is extracted below:- “5. In view of the undisputed fact, the respondents are restrained from insisting the petitioner and his customers either to obtain transport permit or to get mentioning of the final places of destination in the bills issued by the Public Works Department to transport the processed/filtered sand from the stockyard of the petitioner, referred above, to the place of the petitioner's purchaser's destination. 6. In the Division Bench decision dated 30.9.2005 in W.P.No.1351 of 2004 etc. batch, referred above, the Division Bench held that the petitioners are required to purchase sand through bills issued by the Public Works Department, wherein, the place of destination/stockyard is to be indicated. In view of the said specific direction by the WPC 9597/2008 3 Division Bench, it is open to the respondents to verify whether the petitioner purchased the sand through the bills issued by the Public Works Department and whether the place of destination/stockyard is indicated therein. In case any deviation is found, it is for the respondents to take appropriate action against the petitioner.” 6. In view of this judgment it is directed that it will be open to the District Collector to verify whether the consignment is accompanied by a bill issued by the Public Works Department of Tamil Nadu State as indicated in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the judgment extracted above.” 3. The facts of this case being identical, I am satisfied that the petitioner is also entitled to similar relief. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition directing that the petitioner will also be entitled the relief that has been granted in the judgment in WPC No.3656 of 2008, the operative portion of which, has been extracted above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE csl