IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 1160 of 2010()
1. HARIDASAN,S/O.MUNDAN,1/253,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR(ELECTION),
3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
For Petitioner :SRI.A.KRISHNAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.J.CHELAMESWAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :06/09/2010
O R D E R
J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.A.No. 1160 OF 2010
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 6th day of September, 2010
JUDGMENT
Ramachandra Menon, J.
The appellant was the writ petitioner. The challenge in
the writ petition was with regard to the finalisation of the
confiscation proceedings by the 2nd respondent, under the
relevant provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Banks &
Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001; whereby the
petitioner was mulcted with the liability of depositing Rs.3.5
lakhs, so as to release the vehicle.
2. Sequence of events as narrated in the proceedings
reveals that the petitioner, who is stated as the owner of a
Mini Lorry bearing No.KL-07-AZ/6087, was transporting ‘river
sand’ on 28.01.2010, when it was intercepted by the 1st
respondent. After preparing Ext.P2 Mahazar, followed by
Ext.P3 FIR, the matter was referred to the appropriate
authority under the Kerala Protection of River Banks &
Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. The appellant/writ
W.A.No. 1160 OF 2010
-:2:-
petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.3776 of
2010 seeking for releasing the vehicle, wherein Ext.P4 verdict
was passed, directing the matter to be considered. Pursuant to
the said verdict, Ext.P5 interim order was passed by the District
Collector, directing the petitioner to satisfy Rs.2 lakhs so as to
release the vehicle, which however, was not complied with.
Finally, Ext.P7 order was passed by the 2nd respondent, which in
turn was subjected to challenge in W.P.(C) No.16405 of 2010,
wherein the impugned judgment has been passed.
3. The learned Single Judge found that the petitioner did
not have a valid pass to transport ‘river sand’. It has been
specifically observed that, Ext.P1 pass was issued in respect of
transportation of ‘ordinary sand’ and not in respect of ‘river
sand’. This being the position, the transportation of sand
effected by the petitioner was held as illegal and interference was
declined. The learned Single Judge has also observed that the
fixation of value of vehicle by the second respondent was based
on the report submitted by the concerned Joint RTO, as referred
to in Ext.P7 and perfectly within the four walls of the law, being
W.A.No. 1160 OF 2010
-:3:-
in conformity with the mandate given by this Court in similar
circumstances. No tenable ground has been raised to support the
relief sought for and hence no interference is warranted.
The Writ Appeal fails and the same is dismissed accordingly.
J.Chelameswar,
Chief Justice.
P.R. Ramachandra Menon,
Judge.
ttb