AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Antony Dominic, J.—Petitioner claims that on the strength of Exts.P1 and P2 dealers licence, he had stocked various types of sand which are reflected in Exts.P3 and P4 stock register. It is stated that his premises were inspected on 10.1.2011 and the stock was seized by the police. It is stated that despite having produced Exts.P3 and P4 and requested for release of the stock, the Respondents insisted on removing the stock from the licensed premises and it is in this circumstances the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the writ petition.
When the case came up for admission before this Court on 13.1.2011, an order was passed directing the Government Pleader to obtain instruction in the matter. It was also directed that the stock shall not be removed and the Petitioner shall also not appropriated the same. Today when the matter came up, on instructions the Government Pleader submits that, though the licence of the Petitioner entitled him only to stock ordinary sand, the stock available on site was river sand. It is stated that it was therefore that proceedings were initiated against the Petitioner under the Kerala Protection of River Bank and Regulation on Removal of Sand Act and Crime No. 36/2011 of Vaikom Police Station has been registered. It is also reported that the matter has been reported to the Additional First Class Magistrate Court, Vaikom and that a report has been made to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Palai.
Irrespective of the claim made by the Petitioner on the strength of Exts.P1 and P2 that the stock kept by him is legitimate, from the submissions made by the Government Pleader, it is obvious that proceedings have been initiated under the aforesaid Act. Now that the same has been done, it is for the Petitioner to appear before the Statutory authorities, contest the matter and abide by the orders that are to be passed by them. With that liberty the writ petition is closed.
However, taking note of the case of the Petitioner that the stock kept by him is legitimate, pending such orders it is directed that the stock seized from the Petitioner shall not be removed and the Petitioner shall also not appropriate the stock until proceedings against him are finalized.
It is made clear that it will be open to the Petitioner to produce a copy of the judgment before the Revenue Divisional Officer, who shall expedite the proceedings.
Writ Petition is disposed of as above.