Kurian Joseph, J.

1. This is a public interest litigation filed by the Paristhithi Samrakshna Sangham, mainly with the following two prayers:

i. To issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to conduct sand audit as contemplated under Sec. 29 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 in respect of Periyar River forthwith, before allowing sand mining in the said river;

ii. To issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to allot any Kadavus within 500 meters from any Irrigation works as contemplated under Kerala irrigation and Water Conservation Act, 2003.

2. When the writ petition came up for admission it was brought to our notice that sand audit as required under Section 29 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 has not been conducted since the last five years. The Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, is intended to protect river banks and river beds from large scale dredging of river sand and to protect their biophysical environment system and regulate the removal of river sand and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. It is stated in the preamble of the Act that Government had taken note of the indiscriminate and uncontrolled removal of sand from the rivers causing large scale river bank sliding and loss of property. The Government had also taken not of large scale dredging of river sand disturbing the biophysical environment system of the river and hence it was felt expedient in public interest to provide for regulatory measures for the protection of river banks and for removal of sand from rivers. Despite the stringent provisions prescribed under the Act introduced in the year 2001, there have been complaints that indiscriminate sand minding has been going on in various rivers. In the report of the CESS prepared in February, 2004, it is stated that 40 local bodies located on either side of the Muvattupuzha, eriyar and Chalakudy rivers are engaged in the mining of 4802 truck loads of sand per day. It is also stated in the report that “the quantity of sand mining is several folds higher than the natural replenishments and hence imposes severe environmental problems in the river basin environments”. In that background the CESS reported that sand auditing should be made mandatory atleast once in every three years and necessary changes applied in the resource allocation scheme for reviving the overall environmental quality of the river basins.

3. Viewed from the background of the legislation and the report of the expert body, we are afraid the contentions taken by the learned counsel appearing for the Pancyhayat that it is not mandatory that there should be a sand audit for every three years cannot be appreciated. Section 29 of the Act provides for sand audit which reads as follows:-

29. Sand auditing.--The Government may, with a view to ensure protection of every river, provide for periodical measurement of the quantity of sand available for removal by such method and in such manner as may be prescribed.

Rule 30 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sands Rules, 2002 reads thus:

“30. Sand Audit. - the Government shall conduct, every three years Sand Audit through Expert Committees such as Centre for Earth Science studies, Centre for Water Resources Development and Management, so as to ensure protection of rivers in each District and to assess the quantity of available sand.

(2) The expense required for Sand Audit shall be met from the River Management Fund.

(3) The Government shall, as soon as may be after the receipt of the report of sand audit under sub-rule (1) lay the same on the table of Legislative Assembly with an action taken statement thereof.”

4. Section 9 of the Act provides for fixing the total quantit