Judgment 1. This writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to forbear the respondents from interfering with the right of the petitioner and its customers to transport sand, from Puducherry to Kerala, with valid documents. 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the respondents are not interfering with the transportation of sand, arbitrarily and illegally, as alleged by the petitioner. The action taken by the respondents, if any, is only with the intention of curbing illegal transportation of sand, contrary to the relevant provisions of law. As such, the petitioner, as well as its customers, who are said to be purchasers of sand, should satisfy the legal requirements for such transportation, as prescribed by law. Therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to state that the authorities concerned, including the respondents herein, should refrain from stopping and checking the vehicles transporting sand, on behalf of the petitioner and its customers. The authorities concerned are empowered to check the goods that are being transported and to see if relevant documents are available, during the transportation of such goods. The respondents are also empowered to detain the goods and the vehicles carrying such goods, if it is found that the transportation of the goods is being done in a manner contrary to the relevant provisions of law. 3. The learned counsel for the respondents had further submitted that the relief prayed for by the petitioner is very wide and general in nature and therefore, such an omnibus relief cannot be granted by this Court. 4. In reply, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that if all the legal requirements are satisfied, the respondents should not interfere with the inter-state transportation of sand, as held by this Court, in K.P.Enterprises Vs. The District Collector, Salem, reported in AIR 2004 MADRAS 151. 5. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, this Court is of the view that a general direction, as prayed for by the petitioner, in the present writ petition, cannot be issued. The District Collector, Salem, reported in AIR 2004 MADRAS 151. 5. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, this Court is of the view that a general direction, as prayed for by the petitioner, in the present writ petition, cannot be issued. However, it is made clear that the respondents shall consider the documents furnished by the petitioner and its customers, to verify if the transportation of sand is in compliance with all the necessary conditions applicable to such transportation, and if such transportation is being done, as per the statutory provisions, which are applicable to the case. It is for the authorities concerned to take a decision, on a case to case basis, and to pass appropriate orders thereon, as they find it fit to do so, in accordance with law, by following the necessary procedures. 6. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2012 is closed.