The court established guidelines for the inspection of seized materials and clarified the application of related statutes in determining the nature of seized sand.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner approached this Court seeking a mandamus to conduct an inspection regarding the nature of the sand, which is kept in the petitioner’s vehicle bearing registration No. KL-09-AG-4344, in the custody of the 1^st respondent. The petitioner also seeks the release of the vehicle, if the same is empty. When this matter came up for admission, this Court directed the learned Government Pleader to get instructions, specifically as to whether the vehicle was loaded at the time of seizure. Learned Government Pleader, having obtained the instructions, would submit that the vehicle was empty at the time of seizure.

2. On the strength of the above facts, it is the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the dictum laid down in Unais v. District Collector [ 2023(1) KLT 651 ]. This argument was countered by the learned Government Pleader, pointing out that the above judgment was rendered in the context of the Kerala Mines and Minerals Concession Rules , which may not, as such, apply to the seizure made under the Kerala Protection of River banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. Learned Government Pleader would invite the attention of this Court to Section 23 of the said Act in support thereof.

3. Answering the above contention, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a perusal of Ext.P1 Mahasar would not indicate that the sand referred to therein is river sand. It is not specifically stated as river sand in Ext.P1, is the contention raised. That apart, learned counsel would point out that, had it been river sand, going by Section 23A, the confiscation ought to have been reported before the Judicial Magistrate or before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, within a period of 48 hours, which has not been done. Instead, the confiscation, though belatedly, has been reported only to the District Collector, who is an authority along with the Geologist, in terms of the Kerala Mines and Minerals Concession Rules . Thus, learned counsel would conclude that what has been allegedly transported is ordinary sand and not river sand, which renders the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act inapplicable. On such premise, the petitioner seeks release of his lorry bearing No.KL-09-AG-4344.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, this Court is inclined to allow the first relief sought for by the petitioner, that is to direct the 2^nd respondent to conduct an inspection regarding the sand kept in the petitioner’s vehicle bearing registration No.KL-09-AG-4344 in the custody of the 1^st respondent and to send a sample thereof to the laboratory concerned for ascertaining, whether it is river sand or ordinary sand. However, in view of the probabilities arising from the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the vehicle need not be kept idle with the 1^st respondent, until such lab result is made available.

5. In the circumstances, coupled with the above directions, there will be a further direction to the 1^st respondent to release the petitioner’s vehicle bearing registration No.KL-09-AG-4344 forthwith, after executing a bond or complying with such other legal formalities in connection with the case. The authorities concerned will proceed in terms of the Kerala Protection of River banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, or the provisions of Kerala Mines and Minerals Concession Rules , as the case may be, depending upon the outcome of the lab results.

The Writ Petition will stand disposed of as above.