Subran @ Subramanian And Ors vs State Of Kerala on 24 February, 1993
8. Main contention raised by the counsel for the
petitioners is that there is violation of Rule 27 of the Kerala
Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand
Rules, 2002. He also relied on the judgments of this Court in
Subramanian Vs. State of Kerala [2009 (1) KLT 77] and
Shoukathali Vs. Tahsildar [2009 (1) KLT 640]. It was
contended that only when Exts.P10 to P12 applications were
made, the petitioners were issued copies of the mahazars,
which ought to have been served on them at the time of
seizure itself. Counsel contended that the fact that there is no
acceptable specific method to differentiate between river sand
W.P.(C) No.13757/10 & connected cases
: 4 :
and ordinary sand has been accepted in Ext.P15. According
to him, if the respondents had a case that what was
transported was not ordinary sand as contended by them, it is
up to them to establish that fact.