IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2009 / 25TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 16479 of 2008(J) -------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. ST.XAVIER'S FORANE CHURCH, VELUR (COCHIN THRISSUR, REP. BY ITS IT'S VICAR, FR.JOHN KOLLANNUR ACTING MANAGER, ST.XAVIER'S UP SCHOOL VELUR) 2. C.D.VAREED, AGED 58 YEARS (TRUSTEE OF ST.SAVIER'S FORANE CHURCH, VELUR) S/O. DEVASSY, CHITTIAPPILLY HOUSE, ARNOS NAGAR VELUR PO., THRISSUR BY ADV. SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, THRISSUR 2. ADDL.TAHSILDAR, TALAPPILLY TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, WADAKANCHERRY PO., THRISSUR 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, VELUR GROUP VILLAGE OFFICE, VELUR (COCHIN) PO., THRISSUR. *ADDL.R4. C.K. KUNJI PORINCHU, AGED 52, S/O. CHERUVATHUR KUNJUVAREED, P.O. VELUR, BAZAR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. *IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 16/06/08 IN I.A. NO. 7257/2008. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.K. PUSHPALATHA, ADDL.R4. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR). THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/01/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.16479/2008-J: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DTD. 17/03/08 IN W-1/20878/07 OF DPI. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE APPROVAL PLAN SANCTIONED BY THE LOCAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH DTD. 27/12/07. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE FORWARDING LETTER DTD. 27/12/07 ISSUED BY THE LOCAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE CASH BILL DTD. 27/06/07 OF TRADERS. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE DELIVERY NOTE DTD. 27/06/07 ISSUED BY COMMERCIAL TAX DEPT. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE CASH BILL DTD. 16/07/07 OF TRADERS. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE DELIVERY NOTE DTD. 16/07/07 ISSUED BY THE COMMERCIAL TX DEPT. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR THE PAYMENT OF TAX DTD. 04/06/07 ISSUED BY THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR THE PAYMENT OF TAX DTD. 06/06/07 ISSUED BY THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. NIL SERVED ON THE PETITIONER ON 29/05/08 AT 5 P.M. BY THE R.3. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS DTD. 30/05/08. EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 30/05/08 SUBMITTED BY THE SCHOOL ADVISORY COMMITTEE. EXT.P.13: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 30/05/08 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE R.1. EXT.P.14: COPY OF THE MANORAMA DAILY DTD. 29/05/08. EXT.P.15: COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 136/08 DTD. 16/04/08 OF ERUMAPPETTY POLICE STATION. EXT.P.16: COPY OF THE PAPER REPORT IN MANORAMA DAILY DTD. 14/04/08. EXT.P.17: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DTD. 09/12/08. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 16479 of 2008 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 15th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioners submit that for the reconstruction of a day school building, they collected river sand in the premises of the first petitioner, church. It is stated that this was seized by the second respondent on the allegation that collection and restorage of sand was in violation of the provisions contained in the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act. It is stated that thereafter by Exhibit P10, a notice was issued by the 3rd respondent for auctioning the afore said sand. It is against the said proposal of the 3rd respondent to auction the sand, this writ petition has been filed. This court passed an interim order on 3/06/2008 staying the auction and directing the petitioner not to remove the sand from the place where it was stored. Petitioner states that the proceedings are now pending before the first respondent and that Exhibit P13 objection has also been filed before the first respondent. According to the petitioners, order has not been passed on Exhibit P13 so far. The case W.P.(C) No. 16479/2008 2 of the petitioners is that the collection and storage of the sand was legal and the proceedings are not at all justified. Now that the petitioners have filed a representation before the first respondent, I do not think it is necessary for this court to go into such controversial issues at least at this stage. In view of the pending proceedings before the first respondent, he shall finalise the proceedings pursuant to the seizure of the river sand from the first petitioner's premises and in respect of which Exhibit P10 auction notice has been issued. Before orders are passed, notice shall be given to the petitioners and objection filed by them shall be taken into account. Order shall be passed at any rate within four weeks of production of copy of this judgment and in the meanwhile interim order dated 3/06/2008 will remain in force. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm