Independent vehicle owners cannot be liable for illegal quarry operations they are not connected with.

J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 1^st day of April, 2026 Petitioners approached this Court alleging illegal seizure of their vehicles (Tipper lorries) in connection with Crime no.193/2026 of Areakkode Police Station. As per Ext.P2 Seizure Mahazar, the vehicles were found transporting minerals from a quarry, which was being conducted without any enabling license or permit. In Ext.P1 F.I.R, the offences alleged are under Section 288 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 , and also under Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 .

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the issue involved in this Writ Petition has already been considered by this Court in a common judgment dated 19.03.2026 in W.P.(C)No.9255/2026 and connected cases. There, it has been held that the lorries of the petitioners therein cannot be seized for the reason that an F.I.R has been booked against the owner of the quarry.

3. Learned Government Pleader would submit that, that judgment is distinguishable. It was pointed out that, in that case, the vehicle was merely parked in front of the quarry, and the quarry therein was not illegal. In the instant case, the vehicle was found transporting minerals, that too, from an illegal quarry. Therefore, the said judgment cannot apply to the instant facts, is the submission made.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader, this Court notice that even though there are distinguishable facts, the proposition that a person whose lorries/vehicles have been hired cannot be saddled with the liability to ascertain whether the quarry is being conducted in accordance with law or not, merits recognition. The prosecution has no case that the lorries belong to the owner of the quarry, which is being conducted illegally. Lorries belong to the petitioners, who are independent persons and who have no casual connection, whatsoever, with the conduct of the quarry. In such circumstances, for the reason that the quarry from where the mineral was uploaded is illegal, the petitioners who are owners of the lorries cannot be held liable. Nor is the vehicles liable to be seized. This argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is prima facie attracted.

5. In the circumstances, this Court directs the 2^nd respondent to release the lorries, after keeping the mineral in safe custody, within one week from today (01.04.2026). Let the above direction be complied with in the presence of the 1^st respondent. Petitioners will produce a copy of this judgment before the respondents, for compliance.

6. It is clarified that, this Court has not opined anything on the merits of the crime registered against the owner of the quarry. Learned Government Pleader would submit that the prosecution be given the liberty to initiate appropriate action for violation of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules . The said liberty will always be there, either with the prosecution or with the

1^st respondent/Geologist, as statute warrants.

The Writ Petitioner (Civil) is allowed as indicated above.