Sand mining must comply with the rules under the Kerala Protection of river Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001, and be permitted based on the decision of the District Expert Committee and the sand audit report.

J. Chelameswar, J.

The Writ Petition is filed with the prayers as follows:

"1. Issue a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P1 order passed by the 2nd respondent and declare that the sand mining ordered by the 2nd respondent without the decision of the District Expert Committee and without complying Rule 30 of the rules appended to the Act 18 of 2001 is illegal.

2. Issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction to the third respondent to conduct a study under rule 30 of the rules appended to the Act 18 of 2001, in the rivers in the Pathanamthitta District and report to respondents 1 & 2.

3. Grant such other relief as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. There are various restrictions under the Kerala Protection of river Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 on the activity of removing sand from the river beds/river banks. One of the restrictions is that an Expert Committee contemplated under Section 7 of the Act shall identify the "Kadavu" or river bank in a district in which the sand removal may be permitted. Further the said Committee is also required to "fix the total quantity of sand that can be removed from a kadavu or river bank giving due regard to the guidelines of expert agencies like the Centre for Earth Science Studies and Centre for Water Resources Development and Management." The fixation of the quantity of the sand that can be removed from a kadavu or river bank is required to be done in due regard to the guidelines of an expert agency. Section 29 of the Act also obligates the Government to make periodic measurement of the quantity of sand available for removal. Section 29 of the Act 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."

3. The State of Kerala in exercise of the power under Section 26 of the Act made rules known as the Kerala Protection of river Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Rules, 2002.

4. Under rule 30 of the said Rules, it is stipulated as follows:

"30. Sand Audit.- The Government shall conduct, every three years Sand Audit through Expert Committee 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."

5. The grievance in the instant writ petition is that notwithstanding the declaration by a Division Bench of this Court earlier in a judgment which is now reported in Paristhithi Samrakshana Sangham v. State of Kerala and others, 2009 (2) KHC 319, that the compliance with the procedure prescribed under Rule 30 is mandatory, the State of Kerala is permitting the removal of sand in violation of the above mentioned provisions of the Act in Pathanamthitta District.

6. All the respondents are served and represented by various counsel. On behalf of the 2nd respondent a counter affidavit is filed stating that the sand audit contemplated under Rule 30 of the Rules referred to above in so far as the Pathanamthitta District is concerned, was entrusted to the 3rd respondent herein. Though there were periodical audit reports submitted by the 3rd respondent earlier, the latest report of the 3rd respondent with regard to the 'Manimala river' was submitted on 22.07.2010. In so far as the other sand bearing areas of the Pathanamthitta District are concerned, the 3rd respondent is yet to submit a report.

7. In the circumstances, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents not to