AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.—The petitioner challenges the order of confiscation of the vehicle, namely, TN-47-S-6061 by the District Collector. As per Ext.P5 order, the petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 9,50,000/- failing which the vehicle shall be auctioned as per the rules.
The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner''s lorry was engaged by one Sri Ganapathi Traders, Palakkad for transporting river sand from the State of Tamil Nadu to State of Kerala. Ext.P1 is the invoice and Value Added Tax was paid by the petitioner in the name of Sri Ganapathi Traders, Palakkad as per Ext.P2. Ext.P3 is the copy of the delivery note showing payment of the Kerala Value Added Tax. Sand was to be delivered at Irinjalakuda for the customer of Sri Ganapathi Traders, Palakkad. During the transportation of the same, it was intercepted by the Circle Inspector, Cherp Police Station and, thereafter, it was produced before the District Collector. It is pointed out that the petitioner had purchased the sand from an authorised dealer of Tamil Nadu. It is pointed out that there was no allegation that the sand was collected anywhere within the limits of State of Kerala and, therefore, the provisions of Section 23 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 will not apply.
In Ext.P5, the District Collector concluded that the transport of river sand is not a legal one and therefore, there is violation of Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. The District Collected relied upon the Judgment in W.P.(C). No. 3656/2008 to conclude that unless the bills issued by the Public Works Department of Tamil Nadu are produced, no other evidence can be accepted.
Heard the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. In the statement filed on behalf of the first respondent, the allegation is that the petitioner has violated the provisions of M.M. (D & R) Act. It is also mentioned that the transportation of river sand was not allowed from Tamil Nadu to any other State, going by the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules with effect from 25/08/2006.
Evidently, those are not aspects covered by the impugned order passed by the District Collector as per Ext.P5.
The proceedings for confiscation really requires a proper adjudication of the matter in the light of the provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. The question is whether any provision of the said Act is attracted to the facts situation here. There is no allegation evidently that the sand was collected from any of the rivers in Kerala. The further question therefore, is whether the transportation from Tamil Nadu is correct or not. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is prepared to adduce further evidence in the matter if a proper opportunity is given.
In the light of the fact that the matter requires a proper consideration after allowing the petitioner to adduce further evidence in the matter, Ext.P5 is set aside. There will be a direction to the competent authority to reconsider the matter in the light of the findings rendered above. The petitioner can produce further evidence to show that the import of sand was justified and a fresh order will be passed by the designated authority within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.