ASHRAF Vs. DISTRICT GEOLOGIST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are engaged in transportation of granite stones. Among them, the first petitioner owns a vehicle bearing registration No.KL-51-L-5955, the second petitioner owns a vehicle bearing registration No.KL-51-L-5985, the third petitioner owns a vehicle bearing registration No.KL-52-G-2569 and the fourth petitioner owns a vehicle bearing registration No. KL-07-BG-5322. The aforesaid vehicles are being used by the petitioners for their avocation referred to above. On 07.08.2020, having regard to the weather conditions prevailed in Palakkad District, the third respondent imposed a ban on activities in granite quarries in the district for a period of 2 weeks from 7.8.2020 in terms of Ext.P13 order under the Disaster Management Act . On 17.08.2020, the fifth respondent seized the vehicles of the petitioners alleging that they were found transporting granite stones violating Ext.P13 order of the third respondent. After the seizure, the fifth respondent forwarded the files relating to the seizure to the first respondent for further action through his superior officers. Petitioners are aggrieved by the seizure of their vehicles by the fifth respondent. According to them, there was no ban in terms of Ext.P13 order for transportation of granite stones, and the vehicles of the petitioners which were only transporting granite stones ought not have, therefore, been seized by the fifth respondent alleging violation of Ext.P13 order, especially since the petitioners were transporting granite stones on the strength of the mineral transit passes issued by the competent authority under the Kerala Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Storage and Transportation), Rules 2015. it is the case of the petitioners that although the activities in granite quarries were banned in terms of Ext.P13 order for a period of 2 weeks from 7.8.2020, in the communication issued by the first respondent to the quarry operators in this regard, what was stated was that the ban is imposed only for the period up to 15.8.2020. According to the petitioners, the seizure of their vehicles is, therefore, without authority of law. The petitioners, therefore, seek appropriate directions for release of their vehicles.

(2.) As directed by this Court, the first respondent has filed a report in this matter. The stand taken by the first respondent in the report is that the ban imposed in terms of Ext.P13 order was for all activities in granite quarries in Palakkad district other than crushing; that M/s.Dark Stone Land Developers Private Limited, the quarry operator from whom the petitioners procured granite stones on 17.8.2020 for transportation have admitted in the proceedings initiated against them that they have operated their quarry on 17.8.2020 violating Exp.P13 order and that the petitioners cannot, therefore, be heard to contend that transportation of granite stones by them is not in violation of Ext.P13 order. It is explained by the first respondent in the report that since the quarry operator has been issued movement permit before the ban to extract and transport 35,000/- metric tons of granite stones, the quarry operator could generate online transit passes automatically from the Web Portal of the Department and therefore, merely for the reason that the petitioners were holding online transit passes at the time of seizure, it cannot be contended by the petitioners that they have not violated Ext.P13 order.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Government Pleader.