IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 19992 of 2010(Y)
1. ANEESH, S/O.ARAMUGHAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
... Respondent
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.BABU S. NAIR
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :26/07/2010
O R D E R
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C)No.19992 of 2010
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 26th day of July, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner’s vehicle was seized on allegations of
illegal transportation of river sand. That seizure has
culminated in Ext.P1 final order, by which on a finding that
the vehicle was used for illegal transportation of river sand
in violation of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and
Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 & Rules, the
petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- as
value of the vehicle, towards the River Management Fund.
Petitioner is challenging that order. The petitioner raises
two points. First is that the finding in Ext.P1 order that the
petitioner had admitted the guilt before the District
Collector and requested that a small fine may be imposed is
wrong and unsustainable. According to him, a Section
Clerk, whose designation is known to the petitioner,
informed the petitioner that if he puts his signature in a
W.P.(C)No.19992 of 2010
-2-
paper where the admission of guilt is recorded, there would
only be a lesser amount of fine. Believing the said
representation the petitioner signed the document already
written by the Section Clerk concerned, which is now
sought to be held against the petitioner to prove that the
petitioner has admitted the guilt. According to the
petitioner, the petitioner has not admitted the guilt and
there was no sand in the vehicle so as to hold the petitioner
guilty of illegal transportation of river sand. He also
submits that, the valuation made is excessive and does not
represent the market value of the vehicle. According to
him, Ext.P1 does not disclose as to how the value has been
arrived at.
2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the
1st respondent, wherein the allegations are sought to be
controverted. It is specifically stated therein that at the
time of seizure the vehicle was fully loaded with river sand
and even today the vehicle is lying in the compound of the
2nd respondent with full load of river sand. The petitioner
W.P.(C)No.19992 of 2010
-3-
has not chosen to file a reply affidavit to controvert the
same. The allegations of the petitioner is that, the
petitioner was made to sign some documents by the Section
Clerk is also denied. They have produced Ext.R1(a) letter
from the petitioner seeking interim custody of the vehicle,
wherein there is not even a whisper that the vehicle did not
contain any sand. According to them, Ext.R1 (b) statement
was prepared by the officer assisting the District Collector
in the presence of the District Collector and the petitioner
had signed the same in the presence of the District
Collector voluntarily. They point out that the District
Collector has specifically signed that document with an
endorsement that the same has been signed in his presence.
By Ext.R1(b), the petitioner specifically admits his guilt and
requests that a small amount may be imposed as fine. They
point out that the value of the vehicle was fixed by the Joint
R.T.O., who is a competent officer to value the vehicle and
therefore the contention against the valuation is also
without any merit. The Respondents therefore would
W.P.(C)No.19992 of 2010
-4-
contend that the allegations in the writ petition are totally
baseless and cannot be accepted in law.
3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.
4. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government
Pleader in Ext.R1(a) there is no contention raised by the
petitioner that there was no sand in the vehicle at the time
of seizure. Ext.R1(b) is admittedly signed by the petitioner.
The District Collector has endorsed and signed therein that
the same was signed in his presence. In that document the
petitioner specifically admits his guilt. I have no material
before me to enter a finding that, that document was got
signed by any misrepresentation. Petitioner does not also
allege any malafides against the District Collector. In the
above circumstances, I am unable to accept the contention
of the petitioner that the vehicle did not contain any sand
and that he did not admit his guilt. As far as the valuation is
concerned, in Ext.P1, it is specifically stated that the market
value of the vehicle has been fixed by the Ponnani Joint
Regional Transport Officer. The Joint R.T.O. is an officer
W.P.(C)No.19992 of 2010
-5-
competent to value motor vehicles. The petitioner has not
also produced any material in support of his contention that
the valuation fixed is excessive. As such, I have no material
before me to find that the value fixed by the Joint Regional
Transport Officer is in any way excessive. In view of the
above findings, I do not find any merit in the writ petition
and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.
S. SIRI JAGAN
JUDGE
shg/