Siddique vs The Tahsildar on 14 September, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 26614 of 2007(R)


1. SIDDIQUE ,S/O. KASMI,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE TAHSILDAR,TIRUR.
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,MALAPPURAM.

                For Petitioner  :SRIC.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :14/09/2007

 O R D E R
                    ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                   ===============
                W.P.(C) NO. 26614 OF 2007
               ====================

        Dated this the 14th day of September, 2007

                       J U D G M E N T

Ext.P5 is an order passed by the 2nd respondent

exercising his powers under Rule 27 of the Kerala Protection

of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act. It is

stated that, based on this order, proceedings were initiated

against the autorickshaw in question, which is alleged to

have been used for the unauthorised transportation of river

sand.

2. According to the petitioner, it was on the basis of

a valid permit that the sand was transported. Petitioner

also submits that Ext.P4 is a mass representation submitted

before the District Collector long prior to the passing of

Ext.P5. But despite these materials, on the mere allegation

that the petitioner did not produce any evidence, finding has

been entered into against him.

WPC 26614/07
: 2 :

3. Since the order does not reflect consideration of

the permit or Ext.P4, I am inclined to direct reconsideration

of the matter. That apart, I also notice in the order that the

value of the autorickshaw has been fixed at Rs.35,000/- and

penalty of Rs.25,000/- has also been imposed on the

petitioner. Though provision for realisation of value of the

vehicle and imposition of the penalty is intended to have a

deterrent effect on the defaulters and the value and penalty

fixed is far disproportionate to the offences made out.

Therefore the 2nd respondent shall consider the entire

matter including the extent of value to be fixed and the

penalty to be imposed.

4. Accordingly, Ext.P5 will stand quashed and fresh

orders shall be passed with notice to the petitioner, as

expeditiously as possible, at any rate within three weeks

from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In the

meantime, if the petitioner so desires, he may move the

District Collector, in which event, it is for the District

WPC 26614/07
: 3 :

collector to consider the application and pass orders

thereon.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.

Rp