IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2009 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 15891 of 2009(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.RAJEEV, S/O.VASUNDHARAN, DEVA'S TRADERS, TIN NO.32021417024, AGASTHYACODE, ANCHAL, RESIDING AT THEKKEVILA VEEDU, EDAMON, PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOREST DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, KOTTAVASAL, THENMALA, KOLLAM. 3. THE TAHASILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, PATHANAPURAM, PUNALUR. 4. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST, MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, ASHRAMAM, KOLLAM. 5. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, ANCHAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 6. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANCHAL POLICE STATION, ANCHAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY GP SRI.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).15891/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 16th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner stated to be a registered dealer under the VAT, conducts business in Building Materials and River sand. He purchases river sand from Tamil Nadu and sells the same to the customers in the State of Kerala. He has apparently obtained licence from the local authority as well. He complains that when sand is brought from Tamil Nadu for sale, the lorry loads are detained in the border check post. Vehicle is kept under detention without any reason or justification and every time the petitioner has to approach this Court to get the vehicle and the consignment released. He refers to Exts.P5 and P7 orders passed by this Court on an earlier occasion at the instance of some other businessmen, desirous of transporting sand from outside the State. He contends that there must be a direction to the respondents to refrain from detaining his vehicle. W.P.(C).15891/2009 2 2. I heard learned Government Pleader also. I do not think that there can be any anticipatory direction issued by this Court to the respondents which might stand in the way of the officials discharging their functions. If an authorized consignment is being transported by the petitioner, there is no reason for the respondents to detain the same in the check post except to verify the legitimacy of the consignment and also to verify that the consignment is supported by the documents as prescribed by law. If there is any illegal detention, remedy of the petitioner is to challenge the said illegal detention. I am not inclined to issue any anticipatory direction to the respondents. Subject to the above, writ petition is disposed of. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs