IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2011 / 11TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 23379 of 2011(V) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ O.A.JOSE,S/O.ANTONY,AGED 52 YEARS, OLAKKENKIL HOUSE,KILALOOR PO,VELUR VIA,THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNNAMKULAM CIRCLE OFFICE, KUNNAMKULAM,THRISSUR DISTRICT-680011. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERUMAPETTY POLICE STATION, ERUMAPETTY,THRISSUR DISTRICT-680021 3. THE GEOLOGIST,DEPT.MINING AND GEOLOGY,DIST.OFICE,CHEMBOOKAVU PO, OPPOSITE TOWN HALL, THRISSUR-680001 4. DIST.COLLECTOR,COLLECTORATE,THRISSUR-680001 GOVT. PLEADER JAIBY PAUL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 23379 of 2011(V) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS:- EXT.P1:- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDINARY SAND DEALERS LICENSE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT.28/12/09. EXT.P2:- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDINARY SAND DEALERS LICENSE RENEWED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 16/04/10. EXT.P3:- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.19019/11 DATED 13/07/11. EXT.P4:- TRUE COPY OF THE RENEWED DEALERS LICENSE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 08/08/11. EXT.P5:- TRUE COPY OF THE DECLARATION DATED 02/05/11. EXT.P6:- TRUE COPY OF THE 'P' FORM DATED 30/04/10 //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ W. P. C. No.23379 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT Abdul Rehim, J Petitioner is seeking direction against respondents 1 and 2 to restrain them from interfering with or not harassing in any manner, in the affairs of the petitioner dealing with ordinary sand, on the strength of Ext.P4 licence issued by the 3rd respondent. 2. According to the petitioner, he was granted with Ext.P4 dealers licence to sell ordinary sand, under Rule 48 C of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules. Under Ext.P4 licence he was authorised to stock 4000 MT of sand in the property comprised in Sy.45/1 of Kiralur village, which is owned by the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner had collected ordinary sand from various places like KINFRA Park, Koratty, Malampuzha Dam, and Valayar Dam etc. But the 1st respondent is creating trouble by making continuous search at the property and threatening that the sand in question will be seized on registering case against the petitioner. It is further alleged that two police W. P. C. No.23379 of 2011 -2- constables are deputed on 24 hours duty and that the petitioner is not permitted to use his vehicles to transport the sand stocked in the property. It is also alleged that free movement of the petitioner and his family members are also being obstructed by the police. According to the petitioner, the business is conducted in a purely legal manner on the strength of licence issued by the competent authority and the interference and obstructions now caused is amounting to sheer harassment, highhanded and arbitrary actions of the 2nd respondent. It is contended that the 2nd respondent has no authority to seize the sand stocked in the authorised yard of the petitioner or to withhold transportation of the sand. 3. As directed by this Court, the learned Government Pleader, on the basis of instructions received from the 2nd respondent, submitted that the 2nd respondent is suspecting that the petitioner is dealing with river sand under the guise of the licence obtained, in an unauthorised manner. It is stated that the 2nd respondent had collected samples of sands stocked in the property and the same is sent for analysis to the Geologists. It is further stated that, awaiting the report of such analysis, the stock was not permitted to be removed. W. P. C. No.23379 of 2011 -3- 4. Sri.Shoby K. Francis, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, only a quantity of 200 MT of sand is now stocked in the property. It is also stated that the 3rd respondent Geologist has conducted an inspection on 31/08/11 and was satisfied that the petitioner is dealing only in ordinary sand, strictly in accordance with the conditions stipulated in Ext.P4 permit. 5. Under the above mentioned circumstance we dispose of the writ petition directing respondents 1 and 2 to permit transportation of 200 MT of sand which is stated to have stocked in the property of the petitioner. The 3rd respondent is directed to conduct frequent inspections in the premises, in order to ascertain as to whether the petitioner is dealing with any material other than what is permitted through Ext.P4 licence, and as to whether he is violating any of the conditions stipulated thereunder. If it is found on analysis, which is already requested by the 2nd respondent that the petitioner had stocked or dealt with river sand as suspected, the respondents 1 and 2 as well as the third respondent will be at liberty to take appropriate penal actions as provided under the relevant statute. 6. We make it clear that unless it is proved that the W. P. C. No.23379 of 2011 -4- petitioner is dealing in unauthorised sales of river sand or that he is violating any of the conditions of Ext.P4 permit, the respondents 1 and 2 should not create any obstructions to the business activity conducted by the petitioner in accordance with Ext.P4 permit, as long as such permit is valid and in force. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns & ksv/-