IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 29TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WA.No. 1562 of 2011 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.27298/2011 Dated 14/10/2011 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------------------- KUNJIRAMAN.P.V., CHANDRATHIL HOUSE, VADUVANKULAM, P.O.KUTTIYATTOOR MAYYIL THALIPARAMBA, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD - 671 121. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KASARAGOD - 671 121. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANJESWARAM - 671 323. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI.JAMES MATHEW KADAVAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A. No. 1562 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. We have gone through the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 14.10.2011. 2. The appellant claims to be the owner of two lorries bearing registration Nos.KL-59/C-942 and KL-59/C-9428. According to him, he purchased sand from a registered dealer from Karnataka for transportation to the State of Kerala. While transporting the said sand, the lorries came to be detained by the 3rd respondent alleging violation of the provisions of Kerala Protection of River Banks & Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. According to him, as the sand was transported from Karnataka, question of violating the provision of the present Act does not arise. 3. The learned Single Judge, having observed that the proceedings were registered against the appellant herein so far W.A. No. 1562 of 2011 -:2:- as the vehicles in question, opined that the appellant herein could appear before the concerned authority seeking release of the vehicles. With these observations, placing reliance on the earlier judgment of a Full Bench of this Court reported in Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala [2010(3) KHC 333], disposed of the writ petition. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the appeal is filed; wherein the appellant contends that in the light of receipts clearing the passage of the lorries in question at the check post and also Ext.P5 wherein the transportation of sand from outside the State of Kerala was permitted, the learned Single Judge ought to have allowed the writ petition. 5. The learned Government Pleader brought to our notice the notification of the Government of Karnataka in August, 2009. As per the contents of this notification, the State of Karnataka, having regard to the shortage of availability of sand in the States of Andra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Kerala, was of the opinion said situation would encourage the people to remove sand from the State of Karnataka, thereby affecting the rivers W.A. No. 1562 of 2011 -:3:- and river beds of Karnataka. Therefore, come up with the above Government Order banning transportation of sand from the State of Karnataka. 6. In that view of the matter, the appellant cannot take a stand saying he purchased sand from a registered dealer from the State of Karnataka and was transporting the said sand on the date of seizure of the vehicles by the 3rd respondent. Obviously, the appellant ought to have produced some document to show from whom he purchased the said sand, if at all he purchased the said sand from a registered dealer. Surprisingly there is not even a whisper about the person or concern from where he purchased the sand from the State of Karnataka. In the absence of these documents, we are not inclined to accept the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant that this sand was transported from the State of Karnataka, for the obvious reasons as mentioned above. 7. We note from the receipts, Exts.P4 and P5, there is a reference to the number of the lorry, but the commodity in the lorry is not at all mentioned. Further, the name of the W.A. No. 1562 of 2011 -:4:- person mentioned therein is one Sunil and Mahesh. But, the writ petition is filed by one Kunjiraman. None of these names have any reference to the writ petitioners herein. Obviously, even the affidavits of the Sunil and Mahesh are not accompanying the writ petition to support of the contention of the appellant that the goods in fact belong to Mr.Sunil and Mahesh and appellant was transporting the said goods. For the reasons stated above, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. Manjula Chellur, Ag. Chief Justice. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge. ttb