LISSY SUNNY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, whose goods vehicle bearing Reg. No. KL 5 Y 2900 was seized by the Deputy Tahsildar, Kottayam and the Village Officer, Onamthuruthu, on 27.01.2010 on the allegation that the said vehicle was being used for unauthorized transportation of river, has come up before this Court.

(2.) THE petitioner alleges that he was having a valid pass in Form P under Rule 48K of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules. He further alleges that the 8th respondent has been issued with Ext. P2 licence by the Geologist under Rule 48(c) of the above Rules; and in view of the above pass and licence, the petitioner's vehicle could have been searched by an officer, not below the rank of Tahsildar, which is the mandate of Section 23(B) of the Kerala Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. His further allegation is that no sample was taken from his vehicle legally and the sample of sand alleged to have been taken from the petitioner's vehicle was not collected in the presence of witnesses. His further allegation is that the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have not been properly followed as mandated under Section 23(B) of the Central Act. The petitioner's grievance is that his vehicle was proceeded against under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001, assuming that the sand collected from his vehicle was river sand. The vehicle was confiscated as per Ext. P13 order. The petitioner alleges that Section 21(4) of the Central Act 67 of 1957, the vehicle should have been seized by an empowered officer; and under Section 21(4)(a), the vehicle seized under Sub Section 4 is liable to be confiscated by an order of the court, which is competent to take cognizance. Here, the petitioner points out that there is no order of confiscation of his vehicle. It is with these allegations, the petitioner has come up before this Court.

(3.) ARGUMENTS have been heard.