IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH JULY 2008 / 13TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 16187 of 2004(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- K.S.JAYASREE, ATHIRA, UTHARAMCODE, KOTTOOR P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR SMT.RESHMI POULOSE RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, NEYYATTINKARA. 3. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. N. SUDHA DEVI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/07/2008 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 16187 of 2004 EXT.P1: COPY OF LAND TAX RECEIPT DTD 21.1.03 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PALLICHAL. EXT.P2: COPY OF LOAN SANCTIONING ORDER DT. 8.3.03 ISSUED BY CO.OP.AGRL. & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK. EXT.P3: COPY OF APPLN. DT. 29.3.03 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE R1. EXT.P4: COPY OF LETTER DTD 31.5.03 OF R1 TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5: COPY OF CERTIFICATE DTD 9.6.03 ISSUED BY THE PALLICHAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE PETITION DT. 16.6.03 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R1. EXT.P7: COPY OF ORDER NO.H4/32543/03 DT. 24.6.03 ISSUED BY R1. EXT.P8: COPY OF JUDGMENT DT. 22.9.03. EXT.P9: COPY OF ORDER DT. 15.10.03 OF R1. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 26.4.04 OF R1. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.16187 OF 2004 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner approached the District Collector for a permit for transportation of sand collected while digging a pond for prawn cultivation. The same was rejected by Ext.P9 order. The petitioner’s appeal before the Commissioner of Land Revenue was also dismissed by Ext.P10 order. The petitioner is challenging Exts.P9 and P10 orders in this writ petition. The petitioner’s contention is that the petitioner is not actually engaged in collection of sand, but the sand is generated as a by-product while digging a pond for prawn cultivation. She would therefore submit that the findings in Exts.P9 and P10 orders are clearly unsustainable. The relevant portion of Ext.P9 order reads thus: “Their request in to grant transport permit for sand. This is for prawn cultivation. The Deputy Director of Fisheries to whom the matter has been referred to has reported that the depth of the pond required for the purpose is only 1 ½ to 2 meters and that the sand there required is essential for protection of the side bunds of the pond made. In short the Deputy Director's finding is W.P.(c)No.16187/04 2 that there will not be any sand left for transporting through trucks. Moreover the Deputy Director has also reported that what the applicant has done is unauthorised extraction of sand in the guise of fish farming. It has also been reported that the digging don is not fit for fish culture. There has been lot of complaints about illegal extraction of sand from private lands and the legislature Committee on subordinate legislation has in its sitting at Neyyar Dam examined several such complaints. The President's of the nearby panchayats strongly complained about the illegal activities in the guise of fish farming and requested strong determent action. The legislature Committee has directed that all such activities detremental to the ecology should be got stopped. The present petition is one with a request for permission to remove sand for fish culture. The report of Deputy Director (Fisheries) clearly proves that the main intention is not prawn cultivation maintained in the request for permission. In the above circumstances and in consideration of Public interest and for protection of ecology and environment the petitioner's request for granting permission to remove and transport sand from 25 cents of land in R.Sy.226/3-1 of Pallichal Village is rejected”. 2. I see considerable force in the findings of the District Collector. The land involved is only 25 cents. Digging of a pond for prawn cultivation from 25 cents would not generate lorry loads of sand. Further the orders have been passed in public interest for protecting ecology and environment. It is also found that the collected sand would be W.P.(c)No.16187/04 3 required for protection of the side banks of the pond itself. That being so I do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders. Consequently the writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd