SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 58375

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
S.MANU, J
Bijoy.M.K. – Appellant
Versus
The Revenue Divisional Officer – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 48210 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.O.D.SIVADAS
For the Respondents: SRI.IMAM GRIGORIOUS KARAT

The determination of the nature of sand transported is essential to establish if the offenses under the relevant Act apply.

Headnote:The petitioner's vehicle was seized for alleged offences under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. The petitioner argues it was used for transporting sea sand, not river sand. The court permits analysis of the sand to determine its origin, with consequences dependent on findings. The petition is disposed of with directions for the Revenue Divisional Officer to take appropriate actions post-analysis.

Table of Content
1. vehicle seized for transported sand. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. court permits sand analysis. (Para 4)
3. outcome depends on analysis results. (Para 5)

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the owner of a goods carriage bearing Registration No. KL-41/2879. The vehicle was seized by the Sub- Inspector of Police, Payyannur, on 10.10.2025. A crime has been registered as Crime No. 1222 of 2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 20 and 21 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act , 2001.

2. The petitioner states that the vehicle was not used for transporting river sand. According to the petitioner, the offences under the provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act , 2001 are not attracted. It is further stated that the sand transported was sea sand and not river sand. The petitioner relies on Ext. P3 judgment. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a similar order may be passed in this writ petition as well.

3. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender. It was pointed out that the petitioner had filed W.P.(C) No. 35545 of 2025 seeking similar relief, which was disposed of by this Court on 01.12.2025. It was further submitted that the petitioner again got involved in committing the same offence, and consequently, his vehicle has been seized.

4. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, I am of the view that a direction similar to that issued in Ext. P3 judgment can be issued in this case as well. Accordingly, there shall be a direction to the 1st respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer to take a sample of the sand from the petitioner’s vehicle and subject the same to analytical study to ascertain its nature. It shall be open to the Revenue Divisional Officer to seek the assistance of the Geologist. On the basis of the report, the Revenue Divisional Officer shall take a decision regarding the release of the petitioner’s vehicle.

5. It is made clear that if the sand is found to be river sand, it shall be open to the Revenue Divisional Officer to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act , 2001. In the event it is found that the sand in the petitioner’s vehicle is not river sand, the vehicle shall be released on appropriate terms, in accordance with law.

With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top