Petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: “1. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction to respondents 2 to 4 to release the vehicle bearing No. KL-40A/2911 to the 2nd petitioner forthwith.
2. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents 1 and 3 to consider the complaint submitted by the petitioners and conduct an investigation with in the matter by a higher officer and thereafter take necessary action against the 5th respondent for foisting a false case against the petitioners.”
2. As far as the first relief is concerned, apparently, the petitioners have not taken any steps to get release of the vehicle in terms with the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. This Court cannot issue any order to release the vehicle without the petitioners complying with the statutory formalities.
3. As far as the 2nd relief is concerned, it is with reference to the 5th respondent. According to the petitioners, the 5th respondent is involved in various irregularities with reference to sand mining and therefore necessary action has to be taken against him, after conducting proper enquiry.
4. Counter affidavit is filed by the 3rd respondent inter alia stating that there is no truth in the allegation made by the petitioners. It is stated that as part of the enquiry, based on the aforesaid allegations of the petitioners, call details of the 5th respondent were examined and it was found that the 5th respondent received two incoming calls from certain mobile number. Such mobile connection was availed by one Tijo. A. Tomas, who is the close relative of the petitioners. On further enquiry, it was revealed that a person by name Achayan had intimated the 5th respondent that river sand was available with him. The 5th respondent initially got confused and then realised that the caller is involved in illegal river sand business. Hence he encouraged the conversation and the caller agreed to deliver two lorry loads of river sand @ Rs.18,000/- per load. Thereafter, the 5th respondent received another call from the same number and the caller enquired about the details of the site to which the river sand is to be delivered. It was during the aforesaid conversation that it was revealed that certain persons were involved in illegal sand mining. Therefore, a decision was taken to conduct patrolling at Vazhamuttom and the areas of river Achankovil. At about 6 a.m on 25.8.2013 when the patrolling party reached near Mavanal Kadavu, they found that river sand was loaded in a lorry. But, on seeing the police party, the driver of the lorry ruan away from the scene and two persons including the 3rd petitioner were arrested on the spot.
5. It is therefore contended that the 5th respondent was not involved any illegal acts as alleged by the petitioners. That apart, it is stated that the 5th respondent is an efficient police officer and has not suffered any punishment or adverse remarks during his tenure of 6½ years' of service as a Police Sub Inspector. More over, he was awarded with many good service entries for his excellent performance. Ext. R3 (b) is the enquiry report dated 17.12.2013 in that regard.
6. The 5th respondent has also filed a counter affidavit controverting the allegations raised by the petitioners. Learned counsel for the 5th respondent also referred to Ext. R5(a) call list in which items 211 and 219 were the calls received by the 5th respondent from the 3rd petitioner's number.
7. Having regard to the aforesaid facts, it is clear that already an enquiry has been conducted by the Police Department with reference to the aforesaid allegations of the 1st petitioner. I do not think that there is any necessity to proceed further. The enquiry reveals that the 5th respondent is not at all involved in any of the allegations made by the petitioners. The writ petition is only an attempt to defame the officers involved in the investigation of illegal sand mining activities.
In the above circumstances, there is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed.
Se/- A.M. Shaffique, Judge.
Tds/