IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 11TH JULY 2008 / 20TH ASHADHA 1930 RP.No. 553 of 2008() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.9597/2008 Dated 03/04/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITION/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------- S. MOHANAN, PUTHENKANDATHIL, KADATHOOR P.O., THAZHAVA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------ 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, KARUNAGAPPALLY. 3. THE GEOLOGIST, DISTRICT OFFICE, MINING & GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, KOLLAM. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY POLICE STATION, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM. 5. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, KARUNAGAPPALLY. BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/07/2008, ALONG WITH RP NO. 554 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== R.P.No.553 OF 2008 in W.P.(C) NO. 9597 OF 2008 & R.P.No.554 OF 2008 in W.P.(C) NO. 3656 OF 2008 ==================== Dated this the 11th day of July, 2008 O R D E R The above writ petitions were disposed of by judgments dated 20th of February 2008 and 3rd of April, 2008. 2. Petitioners are importers of river sand from Tamil Nadu and the issue dealt with in these writ petitions concerns their grievance on account of the inordinate delay caused at the Collectorate. It was to take care of that complaint, the writ petitions were disposed of following the earlier judgment in WP(c) No.22293/07 and directing that on the petitioners making applications before the District Collector concerned, the District Collector shall consider the applications and pass appropriate orders as per the directions as contained in para 3 of the judgment. It was further directed that it will be open to the District Collector to verify whether the consignment is accompanied by an invoice issued by the authorities of the Tamil Nadu state. 3. Counsel for the petitioner highlights two grievances. One is RP Nos.553 & 554/08 :2 : that since a time frame has not been specified in the operative portion of the judgment for the Collector to examine the matter and pass orders, inordinate delay is caused in the finalisation of the proceedings and that as a result thereof, huge amounts become payable towards lorry hire charges. This certainly is a matter of concern and the petitioners are justified in their complaint. It is common knowledge that if lorry is detained for unduly long periods, that will saddle the hirer with the liability of making additional payments. In order to avoid such a contingency it is directed that the examination of the matter as directed in the judgment, shall be completed by the District Collector or his authorised officer at any rate within 7 days of receipt of an application from the petitioners. 4. Yet another grievance that is now highlighted by the Learned counsel for the petitioner is on the ground that the invoices issued by the Public Works Department of Tamil Nadu Government in favour of the persons from whom the petitioners are purchasing river sand. According to them, since their name or the destination to which the petitioners are transporting the river sand are not mentioned in the invoices, passes are RP Nos.553 & 554/08 :3 : denied on that ground. It is obvious that when a dealer in Tamil Nadu purchases river sand from the Public Works Department of that State, the destination to which the same is transported by the purchaser from the dealer will not find a place in the passes. Though this is the factual situation, still the District Collector cannot be faulted if he takes the view that transporting purchaser should make available satisfactory document to prove that the consignment of river sand was procured from the authorised sources in Tamil Nadu, viz the Public Works Department. Therefore, it will be the petitioners responsibility to prove by documents that the consignment in question is a part of the consignment purchased from the Public Works Department for which invoice has been issued by the Public Works Department to their dealer in Tamil Nadu. However, the fact that the invoice issued by the Public Works Department does not contain the destination in Kerala by itself cannot be held out against the petitioners to deny passes to them. 5. To solve this problem, I feel the District collector should consider the applications made by the petitioners for issue of passes RP Nos.553 & 554/08 :4 : without insisting that the invoice issued by the Public Works Department should indicate the destination in Kerala to which the sand is eventually transported should be mentioned in the invoices. On production of satisfactory proof by the petitioners to show that the sand in question is purchased from a dealer in Tamil Nadu, who in turn has purchased the same from Public works Department of that state and that the same is covered by an invoice/pass issued by the Public Works Department of Tamil Nadu, necessary action in this regard shall be taken. Subject to the above modifications, review petitions are disposed of. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp