Disposed

Sameer T.P v. the State of Kerala and Others

Kerala HC8 Aug 2011WP(C)/28871/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of Public Interest Litigations alleging illegal sand trading. It directed Local Authorities and Kadavu Committees to sell only 25% of river sand via auction, while supplying the balance to bona fide house builders at variable reasonable rates, and clarified their role in sand transport.

What did the court decide?

Directing Local Authorities and Kadavu Committees not to auction entire sand stock but limit it to 25%, with the balance sold to bona fide house builders at reasonable rates;

Sameer T.P Vs the State of Kerala and Others — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN

¶5

MONDAY, THE 8TH AUGUST 2011 / 17TH SRAVANA 1933

¶6

WP(C).No. 28871 of 2010(S)

PETITIONER(S):

SAMEER T.P., S/O.HAMZA,

¶11

THALAKUTTIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KUTTIPPURAM P.O.,

¶12

TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ

¶14

RESPONDENT(S): ---------------

¶15

THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -695001.

¶16

THE STATE HIGH LEVEL COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.

¶17

THE MALAPPURAM DISTRICT EXPERT LEVEL COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR MALAPPURAM, MALAPPURAM. P.O., PIN-676505.

¶18

THE KUTTIPPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KUTTIPPURAM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679571.

¶19

THE KADAVU COMMITTEE KUTTIPPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, THE PRESIDENT KUTTIPPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679571.

¶20

ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI FOR R4

¶21

SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/08/2011, ALONG WITH WPC NOs. 30683 & 33386 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

WPC NO.28871/2010

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶26

P1 : COPY OF RESOLUTION OF THE PANCHAYAT DATED 04/09/2010 AND ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE.

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ.

¶31

.................................................................... WP(C)Nos.28871, 30683 & 33386 of 2010

¶32

.................................................................... Dated this the 8^th day of August, 2011.

¶33

J U D G M E N T

¶34

Ramachandran Nair, J.

¶35

These are Public Interest Litigations filed alleging illegal trading in river sand with the help of local authorities, which control Kadavus in Bharatapuzha, which is a major source of sand in Palakkad and Malappuram Districts. The sum and substance of the allegation is that local authorities are encouraging black marketing of river sand by allowing monopoly business and transport of the same.

¶36

On a careful consideration of the allegations raised and the Scheme of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001, what we notice is that though the Statute is regulatory in nature it does not make any provision for supply of sand on an equitable basis to the deserving who are building houses. In fact Section 14 of the Act provides for sale of river sand at competitive rates in

¶37

¶38

WP(C) Nos.28871, 30683 & 33386/2010

¶39

auction. Regulation of sand mining under the Act helps to protect rivers and environment. However, in our view it is equally the duty of the Local Authorities and Government agencies to ensure that black marketing does not take place in respect of a scarce building material like river sand. In the first place, we feel entire sand available should not be auctioned because traders with financial capacity will acquire the whole lot available and sell at high prices. The result is that consumers will be at the mercy of these traders. River sand can be taken only as wealth available to the State and to the public at large and so much so, trading should not be permitted to exploit the poor people. We, therefore, direct the Local Authorities and the Kadavu Committees not to sell the entire available sand in public auction to traders but to limit such sales to 25% of the sand available, and the entire balance sand should be sold only to bonafide applicants who construct houses for themselves at reasonable cost which could even be made variable depending on financial capacity of the

¶40

¶41

WP(C) Nos.28871, 30683 & 33386/2010

¶42

consumer. In fact, higher tariff can be fixed for sand sold for construction of commercial buildings. There is no difficulty for the Local Authorities to identify bonafide requirement of sand for a person because by producing building permit or any evidence about the commencement of construction work and nature of construction, the Local Authorities should be able to allot sand, sell the same and collect the rate fixed by it. It is for the Local Authorities and Kadavu Committees to fix price for retail sales to various categories of consumers who will be made allotments and follow up sales based on applications received on a priority basis. We make it clear that applicants residing outside the Panchayats also are entitled to apply and obtain sand from the Local Authorities because river with sand is not available in every Panchayat area. This arrangement will continue until the Government or statutory authorities fix any guidelines for sale of river sand to genuine applicants at reasonable rates.

¶43

Another contention raised is with regard to the

¶44

¶45

WP(C) Nos.28871, 30683 & 33386/2010

¶46

monopoly claim by vehicle owners located in the Kadavus for transport of river sand. Vehicle for transport of sand is the choice of 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.

¶47

These Writ Petitions are disposed of directing the Local Authorities to comply with the above directions in regard to sale of sand hereafter.

¶48

(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE)

¶49

Sameer T.P v. the State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sameer T.P v. the State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Othe Vs Babu Thomas

M/S.Tmt Granites (P) Ltd. Vs the Agricultural Income Tax

Adv.Suresh Babu.P.K. Vs Circle Inspector of Excise and Others

The Chief General Manager Vs K.Vijayakumar

M/S Aswathy Hardwares & Paints Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

Union of India Vs K.v.Rajasekharan Nair