Judgment :- In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks the release of his tractor and trailer, which were seized by the respondents while sand was being transported by the vehicle. According to the petitioner, the sand was being carried only for agricultural use. In spite of informing the respondents that the sand was being carried only for agricultural purpose, the vehicle was seized. Even though the petitioner had forwarded a representation to the said effect on 10.1.2005, explaining the circumstances under which the sand was being transported from his own lands to another land belonging to him at the same village, the respondents have chosen to detain the vehicle illegally. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that under Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules (hereinafter called the "Rules"), public are allowed to quarry sand for bona fide domestic or agricultural purposes without obtaining permission for quarrying, provided that the dwelling place and the agricultural land are within the same or adjoining revenue village. Non-release of the vehicles result in the vehicles becoming irreparably damaged, and the revenue officials, without due regard to the said situation, do not pass orders for several months. The vehicle is only a tractor-trailer and not a lorry used for commercial purpose and the petitioner is a poor agriculturist. 3. Learned Special Government Pleader contended that sand is now a banned item for private quarrying and hence, there is no possibility of transport of sand other than to be permitted specifically by the Government on its own quarrying and engaging vehicles for the transport of sand. In G.O.Ms.No. 95, Industries Department dated 1.10.2003, the Government had banned quarrying of sand in Government lands and that permissions/leases granted in ryotwari lands ceased to be effective from the date of the Government Order and that the right to exploit the sand shall vest in the State. When the validity of the said Government Order was questioned, a Division Bench of this Court had upheld its validity in STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANOTHER Vs. P.KRISHNAMOORTHY AND OTHERS ( 2004 (3) LW 738 ). 4. To appreciate the contentions raised in this writ petition and my conclusions as below, it would be necessary to recall the fact situation relating to quarrying of sand in this state. P.KRISHNAMOORTHY AND OTHERS ( 2004 (3) LW 738 ). 4. To appreciate the contentions raised in this writ petition and my conclusions as below, it would be necessary to recall the fact situation relating to quarrying of sand in this state. Quarrying of sand either in Government lands or in patta lands were permitted only in terms of the Rules, subject to leases being granted with reference to Government and poramboke lands, mainly, river beds, channels, etc., and the permissions being granted for quarrying in patta lands. Undoubtedly, sand is required for regular construction activities, which is a must for any development project, and therefore, extraction of sand has to be permitted to the extent that it does not affect ecological factors. At the same time, experience have shown that indiscriminate sand quarrying had resulted in totally destroying the environmental and ecological requirements, damaging river beds beyond repair, unduly deepening and widening of the river beds resulting in affecting the natural flow of water, depletion and degradation of the ground water table, etc. It has also resulted in grave law and order situation of villagers objecting to sand quarrying. Further, highhandedness in illegal quarrying went unchecked to such a level of killing revenue officials. This resulted in a Public Interest Litigation, and the High Court, taking serious note of the law and order situation and the environmental disorder, issued directions to the Government to constitute a Committee of experts consisting of Geologists, Environmentalists, Scientists and other officials to study the river and river beds in the State and to follow up the suggestions of the Committee. The High Level Committee was duly constituted and the conclusions of the Committee and their suggestions find place in paragraphs 3 and 4 of G.O.Ms.No.95, which are as follows: "3. Some of the major observations of the High Level Committee are: (a) In all the areas, mining of river sand has been done in a haphazard, irregular and unscientific manner causing environmental degradation. (b) Sand quarrying has created pools of water stagnation in the river bed, impairing the water flow down stream, which in turn will have grave consequences on agricultural production. (c) The usage of machinery like poclain for removal of sand has caused river bed erosion, collapse of banks, damages to infrastructure like bridges, transmission power lines and drinking water systems. (b) Sand quarrying has created pools of water stagnation in the river bed, impairing the water flow down stream, which in turn will have grave consequences on agricultural production. (c) The usage of machinery like poclain for removal of sand has caused river bed erosion, collapse of banks, damages to infrastructure like bridges, transmission power lines and drinking water systems. (d) The lessees have generally exceeded the area of grant and quarried more than the permissible depth. (e) There is no responsibility of a single department in respect of sand mining. Three departments that are involved are Geology and Mining, Revenue and Public Works Department. 4. The High Level Committee has concluded that a) illicit and haphazard sand mining has led to deepening of the river beds, widening of the rivers, damage to civil structures, depletion of groundwater table, degradation of groundwater quality, sea water intrusion in coastal areas, damages to the river systems and reduction in biodiversity. Moreover, sewage and other effluents let into the rivers cause health hazards and environmental degradation. Tamil Nadu has several river basins with good potential of sand. Proper scientific approach of exploitation and utilization are needed to remove this resource. This will not only ensure good revenue to the Government, but will also be in harmony with nature. b) even though several rules on sand mining exist, illegal quarrying of sand is out of control. Authority for regulating sand mining is vested with different organizations such as, State Geology and Mining Department, Revenue Department and Public Works Department. Hence, implementation and monitoring of rules and regulations regarding sand quarrying are not effective. This important task of sand mining therefore, should be entrusted to a SINGLE AGENCY. 5. The observations of the Committee were taken note of by the Government, which took a decision in public interest to ensure the following: (i) Elimination of indiscriminate and unscientific sand quarrying; (ii) Uninterrupted availability and supply of sand in a regularly and orderly manner to the common public; (iii) Availability of sand at affordable prices to the common public, thereby effecting reduction in the cost of construction; (iv) Augmentation of the Revenue of the State Government. 6. The Government, thereupon, took a decision, rightly in my opinion in public interest, to take away the right to exploit sand in the State by private quarrying and issued G.O.Ms.No.95 dated 1.10.2003. 6. The Government, thereupon, took a decision, rightly in my opinion in public interest, to take away the right to exploit sand in the State by private quarrying and issued G.O.Ms.No.95 dated 1.10.2003. The validity of the Government Order was considered in a batch of writ appeals, as aforesaid and the Division Bench upheld the Government Order in respect of both Government and patta lands. Only in respect of continuing leases as on date, a condition was imposed by the Division Bench that the Government should give opportunity to the lease holders to show that there was no infraction of any environmental loss or breach of the conditions of lease or permits and to pass appropriate orders. In cases where there was no violation of ecological and environmental needs, they would be entitled to continue till the lapse of the lease period or subject to the right of the Government to issue a notice by six months for termination of the lease period. 7. With the upholding of the said Government order, today, sand quarrying and transporting without valid permits is totally illegal and banned, in contrast with the earlier situation where illegal transporting of sand was only a technical violation of either the lease conditions or of the terms of the permit and the rules. But now, quarrying of sand by private individuals having been banned, any transportation of sand would be totally illegal and actionable and could be only on the basis of a valid permit issued by the Government. In the past, this Court had been adopting a lenient view in entertaining petitions of this nature, ordering the release of the vehicles by paying a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the involvement of the vehicle for the first time, Rs.10,000/- for the second time, Rs.20,000/- for the third time and the dismissal of the writ petition if involved for more than three times. This leniency and sympathy shown by all the Judges of this Court including myself, was later found to be misplaced and had resulted in not only encouraging a galore of high-handed violations of not only the rules, regulations and public interest of ecological and environmental conditions, but had also resulted in graver law and order situation of the villagers, who are the ultimate sufferers, indulging in violent protest. The saddest outcome is the shocking murder of about six or more revenue officials, namely, Tahsildars and Revenue Inspectors and grievous injury to a Revenue Divisional Officer. Another equally shameful outcome is that in the context of furnishing information to this Court as to whether a particular vehicle was involved for the first time or a number of times, the instruction given to the Government Pleader's office was always that the vehicle was involved for the first time only and rarely there was any instruction regarding the vehicle being involved for more than once. In few cases there will not be any instruction leaving no other alternative except to order release of the vehicle. The instruction thus given to the office of the Government Pleader, did not reflect true state of affairs. I had, therefore, cautioned the Government Pleader's office to ensure receipt of proper instructions to their office. As there was no improvement in the situation, I insisted that the respondents should file an affidavit regarding whether the vehicle was involved for the first time or not. This resulted in total non-response from the respondents/officials. One could easily guess and if a probe is made into the cases already disposed it would reveal how the High Court and the Government Pleader's office had been taken for a ride till now and it is shocking to see that the lobby of such illicit quarrying is so powerful that they could manipulate the revenue officials to give false instructions to the Government Pleader's office. But this is nothing when compared to the gruesome and cruel murders of at least six cases of revenue officials, when they attempted to enforce the rules and to control the violations of the lease conditions in a proper manner. Some of the counsel appearing for the petitioners were very vociferously pleading for such petitioners. They should, for a moment, think of the plight of widows and children of the slain Government officials for performing their duties honestly and the damage which goes on unchecked to the environment and ecology caused by the petitioners. 8. The reason why the offenders are so desperate in the case of sand quarrying than in any other venture is easy to guess. 8. The reason why the offenders are so desperate in the case of sand quarrying than in any other venture is easy to guess. Today, if anyone wants to establish a factory or a manufacturing unit of even a needle or a pin or a pencil, has to spend and invest a capital of lakhs of rupees, if not, crores. A large property has to be acquired, a factory constructed and machineries have to be purchased, by raising loan. After the Unit is commissioned, one has to satisfy various recurring expenditure such as interest on the loan amount, cost of raw materials, electricity tariff, wages and compliance of legislations like Provident Fund, E.S.I., etc. Then comes the marketing in a competitive bazaar after paying commission to the distributor and the retail sales and not to forget sales-tax and income-tax. After all these commitments, if one makes a profit, he is lucky. In contrast, we may compare sand quarrying. None of such requirements or hassles are involved. No investment or capital is required. The commodity which is exploited are natural resources, which belong to every citizen of the country. The lease amount which is paid to the Government is nothing but a pittance, when compared to the actual profit which the lease-holders make. Moreover, in most cases, one of the violations acknowledged by the High Level Committee is high-handedly operating in areas beyond and in far excess of the leasehold area, which yields heavy and illegal income as a reward for such violations. If the lease is for 10 acres, they would operate in a large area several times exceeding the actually permitted area. All these factors result in heavy income without capital or expenditure which explains most of them behaving like organised goondas, resorting to all possible violations and to the extent of even killing of revenue officials mercilessly, if they stand in the way of violations. They have easy access to bigwigs in all political parties which makes them feel secure. This is the price which the State has to pay for allowing vested interests to exploit natural resources. There is absolutely no justification as to why natural resources should be allowed to be exploited by private individuals. If need arises for sand quarrying, the State itself can do it. This is the price which the State has to pay for allowing vested interests to exploit natural resources. There is absolutely no justification as to why natural resources should be allowed to be exploited by private individuals. If need arises for sand quarrying, the State itself can do it. The local bodies have always been complaining that they have no adequate funds even to meet the basic needs for providing education and health services to the poor, water supply, lighting streets, etc. If only the local bodies are allowed to operate in a proper manner, there is no justification for leaving the quarrying operations to private individuals. The fruits of natural resources should be available to the common man and not to a handful of vested interests. Therefore, in the said direction, the Government had taken a proper and laudable decision. The validity of the said decision/Government Order has also been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court. 9. Surprisingly, the spree of the illegal sand quarrying continues, as could be seen not only from newspaper reports, but also from the unabated number of writ petitions being filed before this Court for the release of the vehicles. 10. On the side of the Government, it is represented that even after the ban, two revenue officials have been killed. There can be only two reasons for this lawlessness. One is corruption among many revenue officials and the other is the benevolence and misplaced sympathy shown by the High Court, which includes myself. In cases of seizure and action being taken by honest and bold revenue and mines officials, this Court is inclined to release the vehicles, which explains that the offenders have no regard for the directions issued by or the action taken by such honest and bold officials. When some of the officials of the lower level of the revenue and mines Department make sincere efforts to put an end to such illegal activities even at the risk of their lives, it would not be proper for anyone to expect the High Court to be lenient, which ultimately leads to such gruesome killings, not to mention the threats which many of them are sure to be facing. As I had stated earlier, at least before the ban, violations in most cases may not have been of serious nature. As I had stated earlier, at least before the ban, violations in most cases may not have been of serious nature. But, if quarrying operations can go on even after the ban, it reflects very badly on the entire system. That is the reason why I feel that at least hereafter, writ petitions seeking the release of vehicles transporting sand have to be dealt with strictly. 11. If the Government is really and sincerely interested in implementing the prohibition of sand quarrying by private parties, they should also implement the provisions strictly and in a deterrent manner instead of allowing the life of the revenue officials to be sacrificed and allowing such lawlessness to be continued. While the Government at the higher level has taken serious note of the violations, the indelible harm to the ecology, improper utilisation of the natural wealth by a handful individuals etc., officials at the lower level till now appear to be adopting a soft attitude. Ultimately, the High Court, taking note of the seriousness of the situation, directed the formation of the High Level Committee which led to the decision of the Government to impose the ban. Now at least the time has come for the officials to strictly implement the provisions. Section 21 of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, under which the Tamil Nadu Rules have been issued, treats such offences as cognizable offences and the offenders are liable to be prosecuted under Section 21(1) leading to punishment by imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years. The serious nature of illegal conduct of exploitation of natural resources is taken note of under the Act, but at the implementation level, undue leniency is shown. It is high time the Government issues strict instructions to arrest and prosecute the offenders which would, to a very considerable extent, bring the violations under control, failing which there is absolutely no hope of stopping the continuing harm to the ecology which has become rampant particularly in Tamil Nadu. It is rather an unpleasant fact that the benefit of this loot is shared by the local bigwigs in the area belonging to almost all political parties which explains the lenient treatment of the offenders who could go scot-free even after butchering the officials. 12. It is rather an unpleasant fact that the benefit of this loot is shared by the local bigwigs in the area belonging to almost all political parties which explains the lenient treatment of the offenders who could go scot-free even after butchering the officials. 12. As regards seizure and release of vehicles, the officials have to be allowed to act freely within the framework of the Rules. The Rules provide for enquiry to be conducted after seizure, for imposition of penalties, etc. vide Rule 36-A. If penalty is imposed, appeal and second appeal are provided for under Rule 36-C. Therefore, there is no justification for the offenders to bypass all the statutory remedies and come to this Court directly seeking release of the vehicles. 13. The only excuse for approaching this Court appears to be that the authorities take unreasonably longer time to complete the adjudication process resulting in the vehicles being subjected to rusting and damage. It is very true that such unnecessary delay resulting in the rotting of the vehicles would not be proper and this defect could be rectified by imposing a time limit for the release of the vehicles. Vehicles can be ordered to be released if the proceedings could not be completed within a reasonable period of two weeks from the date of the seizure by asking the offenders to pay a heavy fine, which should be refundable subject to the result of the adjudication. If the enquiry and the adjudication cannot be completed within a period of two weeks from the date of seizure, the vehicle can be released on payment of the fine amount. The amount is liable to be refunded to the individual, if the proceedings end in his favour. The minimum amount, as indicated under Rule 36-A(1) is Rs.25,000/- and that amount can be imposed as a provisional penalty for the release of the vehicle subject to final conclusion of the proceedings. If the Government really wants to curb illegal quarrying and other atrocities which are being committed in inhuman manner, mere imposition of fine alone is not sufficient. The illegal income/profit which is derived by the offenders is so high that penalty once in a while is of no consequence to them. With the banning of the private quarrying of sand, the Government should strictly apply Section 21 leading to imprisonment. 14. The illegal income/profit which is derived by the offenders is so high that penalty once in a while is of no consequence to them. With the banning of the private quarrying of sand, the Government should strictly apply Section 21 leading to imprisonment. 14. As I had indicated my mind to deviate from the usual pattern of the order hitherto being issued by this Court in view of the changed scene of imposition of ban on sand quarrying, I had permitted all the counsel appearing in similar writ petitions to have their say and objections and I heard all the learned counsel including Mr.V.Sanjeevi, Mr.K.R.Krishnan and others, which are being disposed separately. The main grievance which is projected to bypass the statutory adjudication is the delay in the conclusion of the proceedings resulting in the damage of the vehicles, as dealt with above. No other legal submissions were made to justify this Court passing orders directing the release of the vehicles. 15. All the other submissions relate to factual averments such as sand being transported only for agricultural or domestic use as provided under Rule 6 or there being a valid permit to transport sand or that only clay soil was being transported and not sand from any river, channel of tank. Such factual disputes cannot be gone into in a writ petition and it is only the competent authority, who can go into those issues and consider the materials to be produced before him. There is also a further appeal and a second appeal. 16. Another submission which was made is that tractors with trailers and bullock carts were being seized and that usage of such vehicles would only mean for bona fide agricultural and domestic use. I am afraid that such generalisation is not permissible. Action is initiated in the context of the commodity which is being transported and not what type of vehicle was being used. The fact that sand was being transported in a trailer or by a bullock cart cannot lead to any presumption otherwise more so when quarrying of sand by private parties is prohibited. It is a matter of common knowledge that tractors/trailers and bullock carts are also used on hire to carry any material including sand even in big towns. The fact that sand was being transported in a trailer or by a bullock cart cannot lead to any presumption otherwise more so when quarrying of sand by private parties is prohibited. It is a matter of common knowledge that tractors/trailers and bullock carts are also used on hire to carry any material including sand even in big towns. It is for the party to establish in the enquiry that the sand was being carried only for own, domestic or agricultural purpose, as permitted under the Rules. 17. A further submission was that those who own tractors were poor agriculturists and they have to be treated sympathetically. This submission is due to ignorance of rural economy. No poor agriculturist owning only two or three acres can afford to maintain a tractor. Tractors can be purchased and maintained only by well to do agriculturists. Moreover, in most cases, tractors and bullock carts are also operated on hire commercially. Therefore, there is no basis for any presumption that the owner of a tractor or a bullock cart should be a poor agriculturist. 18. Therefore, in all the writ petitions seeking for release of vehicle seized on the ground that they were transporting sand, I would be inclined to pass the following order: (i) The writ petitions can be ordered only with a direction to the competent authority to complete and dispose of the enquiry/adjudication within a period of two weeks from the date of the order and the learned Government Pleader shall, without waiting for a copy of the order, immediately communicate the directions by letter instructing the authority to complete the proceedings within two weeks or to release the vehicle, if the proceedings cannot be completed within that period, by imposing a minimum fine of Rs.25,000/-. (ii) The authorities have to bear in mind that unnecessary delay is bound to result in the vehicles being damaged irreparably and that such delay will not be proper. Public interest requires that the proceedings should be completed within a period of two weeks at the most. (iii) In the event of the proceedings not being completed within a period of two weeks for any reason, then, the vehicle should be released on payment of a minimum fine of Rs.25,000/-. Enhanced fine should be imposed if the vehicle was involved more than once and prosecution should be launched under Section 21 of the Act. (iii) In the event of the proceedings not being completed within a period of two weeks for any reason, then, the vehicle should be released on payment of a minimum fine of Rs.25,000/-. Enhanced fine should be imposed if the vehicle was involved more than once and prosecution should be launched under Section 21 of the Act. The fine amount shall be refunded if the adjudication ends in favour of the petitioner. (iv) Action being taken against genuine transport of sand in terms of Rule 6 should be avoided. Enforcement of rules shall be in cases of real violation of the Rules and should not be applied in a frivolous manner to harass anyone. (v) In the case of bullock carts, the animals shall be released forthwith without any condition. (vi) It is not enough for the Government to have taken a decision to ban private quarrying of sand. Alternate arrangements for quarrying by Government/local bodies have to be formulated in a proper manner and the authorities should be allowed to issue uniform format of permits to vehicles which are allowed to transport sand for proper identification so that there will be no harassment of genuine parties. (vii) On completion of the proceedings, the aggrieved parties will be at liberty to pursue further remedy by way of appeal and second appeal. Approaching the High Court shall be avoided except in cases of lack of jurisdiction or non-compliance of principles of natural justice. With the result, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to complete the proceedings within a period of two weeks from today and to release the vehicles subject to the above observations. No costs.