P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.

1. Constitutional validity of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 ('Sand Act' in short); the Rules framed under Sec. 26 of the Said Act and the relevant provisions of the Ordinance bearing No.38/10 whereby the provisions regarding the confiscation and the further steps have been detailed and incorporated as per Sections 23 and 23A to 23D, is under challenge in most of these cases, particularly the Appeals and some of the writ petitions; while the other cases have been tagged on with the former group. The main contention is that, it is beyond power and competence of the State, as the entire topic with regard to the legislation for minor minerals has been taken over by the Union as enlisted under Entry No.54 of List I; giving no room for the State to legislate on the same subject with reference to Entry No.23 of List II of the 7th Schedule of the Constitut of India.

2. The challenge raised before this Court takes its origin from the orders passed by the concerned District Collector of various districts, pursuant to seizure of the vehicles, in which the river sand was being transported, contrary to the relevant provisions of the 'Sand Act', arriving at a finding in this regard and making it known under Rule 27(3) that the vehicle could be released on payment of the amount, equal to the value of the vehicle as fixed by the District Collector to the 'River Management Fund' (along with the fine in some cases); lest it should lead to further proceedings.

3. In the concerned Writ Petitions which form the subject matter of the relevant Writ Appeals, the challenge raised by the petitioners, with regard to the power and competence of the District Collector to order confiscation of the vehicles and also as to the power and competence of the State to pass the 'Sand Act' and Rules thereunder, which are allegedly ultra vires to the 'MMDR Act' [The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation)Act,1957] and Rules made by the State invoking the power under Section 15 of the said Act (The Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967) was repelled by the learned Single Judge, holding that the validity of the 'Sand Act'/Rules stands already upheld by the decision rendered by this Court as reported in Subramanian vs. State of Kerala (2009(1) KLT 77). The appeals have been preferred stating that the observations made by the learned Single Judge are not correct and that the decision rendered by the learned single Judge in 2009(1) KLT 77 (cited supra) requires re-consideration.

4. The arguments on behalf of the appellants/writ petitioners were led mainly by learned Counsel Mr.Sunny Mathew and Mr. Babu S. Nair, while the case of the respondents/State was asserted by Mr. Renjith Thampan, the learned Addl. Advocate General. Both the sides were heard at length, with reference to the facts, law and the judicial precedents cited in support thereof.

5. As pointed out already, the challenge raised from the part of the appellants/ petitioners is mainly that the 'Sand Act'/Rules is beyond the legislative competence of the State, in view of the 'MMDR Act' enacted to provide development and regulation of mines and minerals under the control of the Union by virtue of Entry 54* of List I of 7th Schedule of Constitution of India. It is also pointed out that the power of a State to legislate on the subject involving mines and minerals as provided in Entry 23** of List II of 7th Schedule, is obviously subject to Entry 54 of List I and since the Parliament has already declared the expediency in public interest to have the legislation and control to be vested with the Centre ( by virtue of the declaration under Section 2 of the MMDR Act), the entire topic has been taken over by the Central Government, which is very much inclusive of 'minor minerals' as well (as defined under Section 3 (e) of the MMDR Act) and as such, nothing is left out to be legislated by the State, resorting to Entry