IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 22ND NOVEMBER 2011 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 30820 of 2011(B) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- T.N.SWAMINATHAN, S/O.NAGAN, KOOTTUPATHA, MUNDOOR P.O., PIN-678 592, PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO LOCAL SLEF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. 2. THE STATE HIGH LEVEL COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT, PIN-695 001. SECRETARIAT, THRIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE PALAKKAD DISTRICT EXPERT LEVEL COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD, PIN-678 001. 4. THE ANAKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ANAKKARA P.O., PIN-679 551, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 5. THE KADAVU COMMITTEE KOOTTAKKADAVU, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, THE PRESIDENT ANAKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ANAKKARA P.O., PIN-679 551, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 6. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PALAKKAD-678 001. R1 TO R3, R6 BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 30820/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE PASS DATED 11/10/2011 IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER. P2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 8/8/2011 IN WPC 28871/2010 FILED BEFORE THIS HONOURABLE COURT. P3: COPY OF THE LETTER SEND BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN TO RESPONDENTS 3 TO 6 HEREIN DATED 9/11/2011. P4: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT GIVEN TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 5/11/2011. P5: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT GIVEN TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 5/11/2011. P6: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT GIVEN TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 5/11/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 30820 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the resident of Mundoor in Palakkad District. According to him he is renovating his house and is in need of river sand for the said purpose. Therefore he approached the 4th respondent and Ext.P1 is the pass issued to him on 11.10.11, allotting sand. 2. It is stated that on the strength of Ext.P1, petitioner approached the 5th respondent for taking the allotted quantity of sand. However the 5th respondent insisted that the petitioner should transport sand in vehicles registered with them. 3. Petitioner owns two vehicles of his own and therefore he wanted to transport sand in lorries owned by him or any lorry of his choice. This was not agreeable to the 4th and 5th respondents. According to the petitioner he made representations to the respondents but that was in W.P.(C) No. 30820 OF 2011 :2 : vein. Therefore essentially praying that respondents 4 and 5 should be directed to permit the petitioner to lift the allotted quantity of sand in the vehicle of his choice he has filed this writ petition. 4. In this writ petition though notice was ordered by special messenger there is no appearance on behalf of respondents 4 and 5 and the other respondents are represented by the learned Government Pleader. 5. Having heard the contentions submitted by both the sides, it is seen that a similar issue has been decided by this court and copy of the judgment is produced as Ext.P2. In paragraph 3 of that judgment this court held thus. “Another contention raised is with regard to the monopoly claim by vehicle owners located in the Kadavus for transport of river sand. Vehicle for transport of sand is the choice of W.P.(C) No. 30820 OF 2011 :3 : customers and rate payable also is to be fixed between the customer and the transporter. We do not think the Local Authority has any role in regard to the vehicle to be arranged for transport of sand sold to consumers, and it is the duty of the Local Authorities and the Kadavu Committees to issue pass and load the sand in the vehicles identified or brought by the consumers for transport of sand.” 6. From the above judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court, it is evident that for transportation of river sand, it is for the consumer to choose his vehicle. In this case that precisely is what the petitioner is insisting. 7. In my view the petitioner is fully justified in what he is asking and therefore respondents 4 and 5 are bound to permit the petitioner to transport the allotted quantity of river sand in the vehicles of his choice. W.P.(C) No. 30820 OF 2011 :4 : 8. I therefore dispose of the writ petition directing that on production of a copy of this judgment respondents 4 and 5 shall permit the petitioner to transport the sand allotted as per Ext.P1 or any other quantity that may be allotted, in vehicles of his choice. 9. It is made clear that in the event the petitioner faces any obstruction for transportation of river sand as above, it will be open to the petitioner to make a request to the 6th respondent along with a copy of this judgment, in which event, the 6th respondent will take appropriate action in the matter. The writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ul/-