Disposed

Ravi v. District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram

Kerala HC25 Mar 2024WP(C)/12504/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Lorry owner transporting M-sand challenged seizure and confiscation proceedings under the Kerala Sand Act after a Mining and Geology report confirmed the material was M-sand. Court set aside rejection order, directed District Collector to decide refund claim afresh with hearing within four months.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P4 order set aside; District Collector directed to decide refund of fine and value of seized material after hearing, within four months, valuation as on date of seizure.

Ravi Vs District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram — Mining and Natural Resources | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶4

MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1946

¶5

WP(C) NO. 12504 OF 2013

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

RAVI, AGED 35 YEARS
S/O.DASSAYYAN, PATTATHUVILAYIL, KALIYIKKAVILA,
MEENACHAL P.O, VILAVANCODE, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI

¶8

RESPONDENT/S:

¶9

1 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 005.

¶10

2 ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR NEYYATTINKARA 695 121.

¶11

3 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KANJIRAMKULAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 524.

¶12

SRI. BINOY DAVIS (GP)

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C) NO. 12504 OF 2013 2

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

Petitioner is the registered owner of Ashok Leyland Lorry vehicle bearing registration No.TN 74 M 8289. According to the petitioner, while transporting M-sand from Thuthukkudi in Tamil Nadu to Kollam, the vehicle of the petitioner was taken into custody by the police on the allegation that the petitioner was transporting river sand. According to the petitioner, the petitioner paid Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) in lieu of confiscation of the vehicle and got the vehicle released. However, the M-sand in the vehicle was handed over to the 2^nd respondent under the provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Sand Act’). According to the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to refund of the fine amount and the value of the material, as Ext.P3 report of the Director of the Mining and Geology Department shows that the material carried in the lorry of the petitioner was M-sand and was not river sand. It is submitted that the proceedings were therefore without jurisdiction. Though the petitioner filed an application before the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram,

¶17

WP(C) NO. 12504 OF 2013 3

¶18

the same was rejected by Ext.P4 order, stating that the vehicle and the sand were taken into custody as the petitioner did not have necessary documents proving that the material was M- sand and that it has been transported from Thuthukkudi to Kollam.

¶19

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since Ext.P3 report conclusively concludes that the material carried in the vehicle of the petitioner was only M- sand, the provisions of the Sand Act may not apply and the entire proceedings is therefore, without jurisdiction. It is submitted that the petitioner is, therefore, entitled to refund of the fine amount and the value of the M-sand which was carried in the vehicle of the petitioner.

¶20

Learned Government Pleader submits that if the petitioner was in any way aggrieved by the proceedings, the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal before the District Collector and a further revision before the District Court. It is submitted that the petitioner did not avail any of these remedies and has straight away approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that, on this short ground, the petitioner is not entitled to any

¶21

WP(C) NO. 12504 OF 2013 4

¶22

relief in the present writ petition.

¶23

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of, directing the 1^st respondent to take a decision on the request of the petitioner for refund of the fine amount and for the value of the material which was taken into custody by the 2^nd respondent. I am inclined to take this view as Ext.P3 shows that the material which was seized from the lorry of the petitioner bearing registration No.TN 74 M 8289 was crushed rock sand (M-sand) and was not river sand. This aspect of the matter does not appear to have been considered by the 1^st respondent while passing Ext.P4 order. The contention of the learned Government Pleader that alternative remedies are available to the petitioner under the provisions of the Sand Act, is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. However, I notice that this writ petition was admitted on 21.05.2013 and has been pending before this Court since then. At this distance of time, it would be unjust to require the petitioner to avail statutory remedies against Ext.P4 order.

¶24

WP(C) NO. 12504 OF 2013 5

¶25

In the light of the above finding, Ext.P4 order is set aside and the 1^st respondent is directed to take a decision on the request of the petitioner for refund of the fine amount and for value of the material, which was seized by the 2^nd respondent, in accordance with the law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. I make it clear that if the 1^st respondent finds that the petitioner is entitled to the value of the material, the value of the material will be calculated only with reference to the value of the material on the date of seizure.

¶26

The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

GOPINATH P.
JUDGE

¶29

ajt

¶30

WP(C) NO. 12504 OF 2013 6

¶31

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12504/2013

¶32

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE FORM NO.8F PARTICULARS.
EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.H6-109014/12/K.DIS
DATED 101/2013 BY THE IST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO.171/T1/2013 DTD.
1/2/2013 ISSUED BY DIRECTOR, MINING AND
GEOLOGY.
EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.H6-17058.13 DTD.
21.3.2013 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT.

Ravi v. District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi v. District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram

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

Sindhu.M Vs Addl.D.P.I.

Riju V.N Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

S.Muhammed Khalil Vs the District Collector

H.Anand Vs State of Kerala

Shri. Mohammed Basheer Vs the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Inv.)

V.Rajagopalan Vs Malabar Devaswom Board