IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2008 / 17TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 47 of 2008(E) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ BEENA P.S., W/O.NARAYANAN NAMBIAR, SOUPARNIKA HOUSE, IRITTY ROAD, KEEZHUR P.O., THALASSERY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KASARAGOD. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUMBLA. 3. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KASARAGOD. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI I.V.PRAMOD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 47, 450 & 498 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated: January 7, 2008 JUDGMENT In these writ petitions, the petitioners contend that on the strength of valid permits they have transported sand from Karnataka. They are also making reference to receipt for payment of money, issued by the commercial tax department in order to contend that tax has been paid in respect of the consignment in question. Despite all these, petitioners submit that the lorries along with the sand have been seized and are detained by the respondents. It is also pleaded in WP(C) 47/2008 that without issuing a notice of hearing to the petitioner, orders have been passed by the 1st respondent requiring the petitioner to remit Rs.50,000/- for release of the vehicle. In so far as WP(C) 450/2008 and 498/2008 are concerned, it is stated that orders have not been passed till date. 2. From the pleadings in this case it is obvious that petitioners' lorries have been seized alleging unauthorised WP(C) 47, 450 & 498 of 2008 Page numbers transportation of sand in violation of the provisions contained in the Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act. It is in view of this that proceedings are pending before the 1st respondent, exercising power under Rule 27 of the Rules framed under the said Act. 3. The 1st respondent, exercising power under Rule 27 of the Rules framed under the said Act, is required to pass orders within the time fixed therein and such orders can be passed only with notice to the affected parties. Since the petitioner in WP(C) 47/2008 contends that order has aalready been passed without notice, it would be only appropriate that the 1st respondent passes fresh orders with notice to the petitioner. Similarly, in so far as the other two writ petitions viz. WP(C) 450/2008 and 498/2008 are concerned, orders have to be passed by the 1st respondent in terms of Rule 27. 4. Accordingly, I dispose of these writ petitions directing the 1st respondent in these cases, to pass final orders in respect of the proceedings initiated against the petitioners as expeditiously as WP(C) 47, 450 & 498 of 2008 Page numbers possible, at any rate, within two weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Before final orders are passed as above, the respective petitioners will be given an opportunity to be heard and they will also be permitted to file their objections, if any. Writ petitions are disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-