Ashraf and others v. District Geologist Palakkad District, District Collector, Palakkad District, Additional District Magistrate, Palakkad District, Tahasildar (LR), Ottapalam Taluk, Village Officer, Ottapalam-I and Sub Collector, Palakkad District

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **TUESDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 14TH ASWINA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.18706 OF 2020(K)** ## **PETITIONERS:** - **1 ASHRAF, AGED 40 YEARS S/O.SULAIMAN, PARIKKUMPARA HOUSE, CHUNANGAD, AMBALAPARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT (OWNER OF LORRY BEARING NUMBER KL-51-L-5955).** - **2 ALI AKBAR, AGED 36 YEARS S/O.ALI, ENGAKOTTIL HOUSE, NILAMPATHI, CHUNANGAD, AMBALAPARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT (OWNER OF LORRY BEARING NUMBER KL-51-L-5985).** - **3 ASIF, AGED 24 YEARS S/O.RAHMATH, VADAKATHODI HOUSE, PULLOD, MANKARA, KALLOOR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT (OWNER OF LORRY BEARING NUMBER KL-52-G-2569).** - **4 MOHANDAS, AGED 38 YEARS S/O.NARAYANAN, ALIKKAL HOUSE, PANAMANA SOUTH, OTTAPALAM VILLAGE, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, (OWNER OF LORRY BEARING NUMBER KL7-BG-5322).** ## **BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678001.** - **2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678013.** - **3 THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678001.** W.P.(C) No.18706 of 2020 ..2.. - **4 THE TAHASILDAR (LR), TALUK OFFICE, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-679101.** - **5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, OTTAPALAM-I, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-679101.** **6 THE SUB COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678013.** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **GP. PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-10-2020, THE COURT ON 06-10-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C) No.18706 of 2020 ..3.. ## **P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.** **-------------------------------------** ## **W.P.(C) No.18706 of 2020** **--------------------------------------** **Dated this the 6th day of October, 2020** ## **JUDGMENT** Petitioners are engaged in transportation of granite stones. Among them, the first petitioner owns a vehicle bearing registration No.KL-51-L-5955, the second petitioner owns a vehicle bearing registration No.KL-51-L-5985, the third petitioner owns a vehicle bearing registration No.KL-52-G-2569 and the fourth petitioner owns a vehicle bearing registration No. KL-07-BG-5322. The aforesaid vehicles are being used by the petitioners for their avocation referred to above. On 07.08.2020, having regard to the weather conditions prevailed in Palakkad District, the third respondent imposed a ban on activities in granite quarries in the district for a period of 2 weeks from 7.8.2020 in terms of Ext.P13 order under the Disaster Management Act. On 17.08.2020, the fifth respondent seized the vehicles of the petitioners alleging that they were found transporting granite stones violating Ext.P13 order of the third respondent. After the seizure, the fifth respondent forwarded the files relating to the seizure to the first respondent for W.P.(C) No.18706 of 2020 ..4.. further action through his superior officers. Petitioners are aggrieved by the seizure of their vehicles by the fifth respondent. According to them, there was no ban in terms of Ext.P13 order for transportation of granite stones, and the vehicles of the petitioners which were only transporting granite stones ought not have, therefore, been seized by the fifth respondent alleging violation of Ext.P13 order, especially since the petitioners were transporting granite stones on the strength of the mineral transit passes issued by the competent authority under the Kerala Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Storage and Transportation), Rules 2015. it is the case of the petitioners that although the activities in granite quarries were banned in terms of Ext.P13 order for a period of 2 weeks from 7.8.2020, in the communication issued by the first respondent to the quarry operators in this regard, what was stated was that the ban is imposed only for the period up to 15.8.2020. According to the petitioners, the seizure of their vehicles is, therefore, without authority of law. The petitioners, therefore, seek appropriate directions for release of their vehicles. 2. As directed by this Court, the first respondent has filed a report in this matter. The stand taken by the first respondent in the report is that the ban imposed in terms of Ext.P13 order was for all activities in granite quarries in Palakkad district other than crushing; that M/s.Dark Stone Land Developers W.P.(C) No.18706 of 2020 ..5.. Private Limited, the quarry operator from whom the petitioners procured granite stones on 17.8.2020 for transportation have admitted in the proceedings initiated against them that they have operated their quarry on 17.8.2020 violating Exp.P13 order and that the petitioners cannot, therefore, be heard to contend that transportation of granite stones by them is not in violation of Ext.P13 order. It is explained by the first respondent in the report that since the quarry operator has been issued movement permit before the ban to extract and transport 35,000/- metric tons of granite stones, the quarry operator could generate online transit passes automatically from the Web Portal of the Department and therefore, merely for the reason that the petitioners were holding online transit passes at the time of seizure, it cannot be contended by the petitioners that they have not violated Ext.P13 order. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Government Pleader. 4. The short point falls for consideration is as to whether transportation of granite stones by the petitioners through the seized vehicles could be said to be in violation of Ext.P13 order. 5. The recitals in Ext.P13 order indicates beyond doubt that the ban imposed was for a period of 2 weeks from 7.8.2020, viz, from 7.8.2020 to 21.8.2020. Annexure-II produced by the first respondent along with the report is the online stock register W.P.(C) No.18706 of 2020 ..6.. maintained by the quarry operator in the Web Portal of the Department. It is evident from Annexure-II stock register that the quarry operator who stopped the activities in their quarry on 7.8.2020 has resumed activities in the quarry on 17.08.2020, violating Ext.P13 order. It is also evident from Annexure-II stock register that what was transported by the petitioners on 17.8.2020 in their vehicles is the granite stones extracted by the quarry operator on 17.8.2020. In other words, there is absolutely no merit in the contention taken by the petitioners that there was no ban in transporting granite stones in terms of Ext.P13 order, for the petitioners were transporting the granite stones extracted violating Ext.P13 order, when their vehicles were seized and such transportation would certainly fall within the scope of the ban. Had this been a case where the petitioners were transporting the stock available with the quarry operator at the time of introduction of the ban, the position would have been different. 6. It is, however, seen that Ext.P13 order has been issued by the third respondent based on the decision in the meeting of the District Disaster Management Authority held on 7.8.2020. It is also seen that Ext.P13 order has not been communicated by the third respondent to all quarry operators in the district. Instead, the first respondent, who was also a member of the District Disaster Management Authority has issued Ext.P12 W.P.(C) No.18706 of 2020 ..7.. notice to all the quarry operators in the district informing them about the ban imposed on their activities by the District Disaster Management Authority on 7.8.2020. In Ext.P12, it is, however, stated by the first respondent that the ban is there only for the period up to 15.8.2020. To a specific query as to the above discrepancy, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the decision of the District Disaster Management Authority in which the first respondent was a party was to impose ban only up to 15.8.2020 and it is on that basis that he issued Ext.P12 notice to all quarry operators in the District. It was pointed out by the learned Government pleader that the third respondent has later decided to impose ban up to 21.8.2020 and it is on that basis Ext.P13 order has been issued by him. If what is stated by the first respondent is true, in so far as a communication has already been sent by the first respondent to all the quarry operators in the District, nothing prevented the first respondent from issuing a revised notice. Admittedly, the first respondent has not revised Ext P12 notice. When the first respondent issues a specific notice to the quarry operators informing them about the ban for the period upto 15.8.2020, in the absence of any modification of the notice, the quarry operators cannot be found fault with for having resumed their activities after the period mentioned in the notice issued to them, especially when Ext. P13 order has not been communicated W.P.(C) No.18706 of 2020 ..8.. to them by the third respondent. In this context, the stand taken by the quarry operator in the proceedings initiated against them assumes relevance. Annexure-VIII is the reply of the quarry operator in the said proceedings. What is stated by the quarry operator in the said reply is that they received only Ext. P12 notice of the first respondent and they were not aware of Ext.P13 order issued by the third respondent. On a query from the court as to the stand taken by the quarry operator in Annexure-VIII, the learned Government Pleader pointed out that Ext.P13 has been published widely in newspapers. According to me, the quarry operators cannot be blamed for having placed reliance on Ext.P12 notice issued by the first respondent in preference to the newspaper reports. Further, the first respondent has no case that the facility provided to the quarry operator to generate mineral transit passes from the Web Portal of the Department could not have been prevented by him during the ban period. Admittedly, steps were not taken by the first respondent to prevent quarry operators from generating mineral transit passes from the Web Portal of the Department during the period of ban. This would indicate that even the first respondent was not aware of any ban beyond 15.8.2020. That apart, it is beyond dispute that the seizure of the vehicles of the petitioners by the fifth respondent was on the premise that the petitioners have committed an offence punishable W.P.(C) No.18706 of 2020 ..9.. under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. It is trite that criminal law cannot be set in motion against a person based on ambiguous orders, and courts have to interpret orders on the basis of which penal liability is attributed, in a broad and liberal sense so that they will not become traps for unlearned and unwary men [See **Seksaria Cotton Mills Ltd. v. State of Bombay** , AIR 1953 SC 278]. In the said view of the matter, according to me, the seizure of the vehicles of the petitioners by the fifth respondent for the alleged violation of Ext.P13 order of the third respondent is illegal and without jurisdiction. The writ petition, in the circumstances, is allowed and the first respondent is directed to release the vehicles of the petitioners referred to in the writ petition forthwith to them. **Sd/P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE** ds 02.10.2020 W.P.(C) No.18706 of 2020 ..10.. ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ONLINE PASS DATED 17.8.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ONLINE PASS DATED 17.8.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ONLINE PASS DATED 17.8.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ONLINE PASS DATED 17.8.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CASH INVOICE DATED 17.8.2020 ISSUED BY THE DEALER OF GRANITE BUILDING STONE M/S. DARK STONE LAND DEVELOPERS TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CASH INVOICE DATED 17.8.2020 ISSUED BY THE DEALER OF GRANITE BUILDING STONE M/S. DARK STONE LAND DEVELOPERS TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CASH INVOICE DATED 17.8.2020 ISSUED BY THE DEALER OF GRANITE BUILDING STONE M/S. DARK STONE LAND DEVELOPERS TO THE 3RD PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHAZAR DATED 17.8.2020 PREPARED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT IN CONNECTION WITH THE SEIZURE OF VEHICLE FIRST PETITIONER.** W.P.(C) No.18706 of 2020 ..11.. **EXHIBIT P9** **THE THE TRUE COPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHAZAR DATED 17.8.2020 PREPARED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT IN CONNECTION WITH THE SEIZURE OF VEHICLES OF PETITIONERS 2 TO 4.** - **EXHIBIT P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 19.8.2020 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE SIXTH RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 27.8.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P12 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 7.8.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE QUARRY OWNERS.** - **EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 7.8.2020.** - **RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES:** **ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 08/08/2020.** - **ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF THE ONLINE STOCK REPORT OF M/S. DARK STONE LAND DEVELOPER PVT. LIMITED.** - **ANNEXURE III TRUE COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED OF THE QUARRY OWNER SRI. N.P. SHAMSUDHEEN, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S. DARK STONE LAND DEVELOPMENT PVT. LIMITED, DATED 09/09/2020.** **ANNEXURE IV TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 09/09/2020 ISSUED TO SRI. MUHAMMED ALI.** **ANNEXURE V TRUE COPY F OF THE LETTER DATED 09/09/2020 ISSUED OF SRI. ALI ASKAR.** **ANNEXURE VI TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 09/09/2020 ISSUED TO SRI. MOHANDAS.** W.P.(C) No.18706 of 2020 ..12.. **ANNEXURE VII TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER 09/09/2020 ISSUED TO SRI.ASHRAF. ANNEXURE VIII TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14/09/2020 GIVEN BE QUARRY OWNER SRI. N.P. SHAMSUDHEEN TO THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST, PALAKKAD.**