The constitutionality of certain provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the "Sand Act") and the validity of some of the provisions contained in the Rules framed thereunder (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") have been challenged in these writ petitions.

2. Challenge has been mounted in certain writ petitions against the proceedings taken for alleged contravention of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, essentially resulting in the confiscation of the vehicles belonging to the petitioners. The competence of the State legislature to enact the Act in question itself has been questioned in some of the writ petitions, though the focus of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, in this regard, has also been centered around the validity of certain provisions in particular. Since, pleadings are complete in W.P. (C).No.15847 of 2008, I have taken up the same as the leading case. I have heard extensive arguments by the learned counsel for the petitioners, touching upon the legislative competence of the State legislature in passing the Act in question.

3. I heard learned Advocate General also in this regard. All the writ petitions were taken up for disposal by consent of parties. I will refer to the bare facts in W.P.(C).No.15847 of 2008 in the first instance.

4. Where the question of validity of the provisions have been challenged, those questions have been discussed first.

5. The petitioner is the registered owner of a lorry, bearing registration No.KL9- G/5124, seized by the Tahsidlar, Ponnani Taluk, 3rd respondent, on 10.2007, alleging unauthorized transportation of river sand. The petitioner submits that the transportation of the sand was accompanied by the permit issued in this regard by the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority, Ponnani. After seizure of the vehicle, there was no adjudication, as such, by the District Collector, either as to the validity of the seizure or on the plea raised by the petitioner for release of the vehicle contending that there is no unauthorised transportation of the sand and therefore, the seizure of the vehicle, in the first instance, is without any authority.

6. On 11.2007, the District Collector passed Ext.P2 order, imposing a fine of Rs.50,000/-and also fixed the value of the vehicle at Rs.70,000/-. Those amounts were ordered to be remitted to the River Management Fund, with a further direction that, if the amounts are not paid, further proceedings will be taken up as per the Sand Act. Ext.P3 consequential auction notice was issued by the Tahsildar. Exts.P2 and P3 are challenged in these writ petitions. The petitioner also prays for a declaration that Section 23 of the Sand Act is repugnant to the provisions contained in the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the "MMRD Act") and the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967 and consequently invalid in view of Article 254(1) of the Constitution.

7. Nocounter affidavit has been filed by the State. But, elaborate submissions have been made by the learned Advocate General in support of the provisions of the Sand Act.

8. I heard M/s.Babu S.Nair, Sunny Mathew, K.M.Firoz, Shoby K.Francis, Sageer Ibrahim, R.Sudhish and P.V.Kunhikrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Advocate General Mr.C.P.Sudhakara Prasad, assisted by Mr.Hood, learned Government Pleader, for the State.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the Sand Act contains elaborate provisions regulating the removal of river sand, which is also a minor mineral. The provisions of the Act, in general, provide for the control and removal of sand from the river banks and river beds. Though the preamble to the Act declares that the purpose of the legislation is to control the indiscriminate removal of sand from the rivers, the provisions of the Act otherwise brings about a serious cur