IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2011 / 29TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1889 of 2011(I) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- 1. O.ABDURAHIMAN, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.ABDULLA, OTHAYAMANGALATH, CHEROOPA P.O., KUTTIKADAVU, KOZHIKODE. 2. O.MOHAMMED, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.ABDULLA, OTHAYAMANGALATH, CHEROOPA P.O., KUTTIKADAVU, KOZHIKODE. BY ADVS. SRI.R.SUDHISH SMT/M.MANJU SRI.K.R.RANJITH RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673 020. 2. MAVOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, POST MAVOOR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673 661. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE PRESIDENT, MAVOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, POST MAVOOR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673 661. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.DILEEP MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 1889 of 2011 I ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 19th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Based on Ext.P1, the Committee headed by the third respondent has passed Ext.P7 resolution excluding the petitioner from the turn system for transportation of river sand. It is this decision which is under challenge. 2. A reading of Ext.P7 itself shows that the vehicles belonging to the petitioner were involved in cases alleging violation of the provisions contained in the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 and several punishments were imposed on the petitioner. It is for that reason they were excluded from the turn system. If as a matter of fact, the vehicles were involved in such cases and suffered punishments, I do not see any reason to hold the third respondent wrong in having excluded the petitioner. If that be so, this Court will not be justified in interfering with Ext.P7. W.P.(C) No.1889/2011 : 2 : 3. Counsel for the petitioner contends that while he has been excluded, many of the similarly situated persons have been included in the system. If that be so, it is up to the petitioner to take up the matter before the third respondent and it is for the third respondent to take appropriate action in the matter. Writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. To Judge