IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2011 / 19TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 20172 of 2011(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ADAKALAKATTA TRADING CO., MAJIRPALLA, P.O.KOLIYUR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, MR.UMMER KUNHI. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD - 671 121. 2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KASARAGOD - 671 121. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KANNUR - 670 001. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.J.RAJASHREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 20172 of 2011(V) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATIION DTD.26.5.2010 EXT.P2: COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DTD.26.5.2010 EXT.P3: COPY OF THE BILL DTD.29.6.2011 EXT.P4: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD.1.6.2011 EXT.P5: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD.6.6.2011 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R4(A) : COPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHAZAR EXT.R4(B) : COPY OF THE FIR //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.20172 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of August, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner claims to be a dealer in sand. According to him he purchased sand from various registered dealers in Karnataka and Goa and is transporting the same to his yard at Vorkady in Kasaragod District. Thereafter it is transported through the Manjeswaram check post to the appropriate destination. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that, the vehicles are being intercepted and taken into custody on the allegation that the transportation is illegal. It is stated that since the sand is procured and transported legitimately, the aforesaid action of the respondent is illegal. It is therefore the writ petition is filed. 3. A statement has been filed by the respondents. Paras 2 and 3 of which reads as follows: “2. It is humbly submitted that on 26.5.2011 at 3 a.m the vehicle bearing No.TN 28AF 5490 lorry coming from Kasaragod side to Kannur was checked W.P(C) No.20172 of 2011 2 by Sub Inspector of Police, Vidhyanagar Police Station. The driver of the vehilce one Muthuramalingam produced the documents of the vehilce only but he failed to produce any valid documents in respect of the transportation of sand. Hence the driver was arrested and seizure Mahazar was prepared and Crime was registered as Crime No.292/11 under Section 58A KMMC and 41(a) r/w 21(1) of MMDR Act and reported to Revenue Divisional Officer for further action. A copy of the seizure Mahazar and FIR is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R4(a) and R4(b). On 26.5.2011 at the time of checking copy of the tax receipt produced before the Revenue Divisional Officer was also not produced. Moreover, as per the judgment in W.P(C) No.16392/10. This Honourable Court specifically stated that as per the Government order dated 14.12.09 Karnataka Government has prohibited export of sand from their soil. This Honourable Court in W.P(C)No.16392/10 declared that if sand is being brought into State of Kerala from Karnataka, it can only be described as illegal Act. Moreover the Honourable Court declared that dealers will have maintain forms MN and O under the KMMC Rules. Petitioner failed to produce P forms issued by the Geology Department of the concern state also. 3. In the above circumstances the petitioner failed to produce the required documents as directed by this Honourable Court for transportation of sand from outside Kerala. Moreover at the time of checking by Police officials the petitioner failed to produce none of the required documents for transportation of sand. In the above circumstances the act of the 4th respondent is strictly in accordance with the direction of W.P(C) 16392/10.” 4. Thus it is obvious that prima facie illegality has W.P(C) No.20172 of 2011 3 been noticed and it is therefore the proceedings were initiated against the vehicles and the materials. In such circumstances if as claimed by the petitioner the procurement and transportation is legitimate, it is for the affected parties to contest the matter and get themselves exonerated of the allegations. The writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE ab W.P(C) No.20172 of 2011 4