O.Abdulrahiman vs The District Collector on 20 November, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 31734 of 2007(C)


1. O.ABDULRAHIMAN
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.R.SUDHISH

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :20/11/2007

 O R D E R
                     ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                    ===============
                 W.P.(C) NO. 31734 OF 2007 C
               =====================

         Dated this the 20th day of November, 2007

                        J U D G M E N T

Ext.P1 is an order passed by the respondent under Rule 27

of the Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of

Sand Act and Rules, 2001. Ext.P1 appears to be a printed

format, portions of which have been left blank to be filled up

depending upon the requirements of each case. It is in such a

format that the petitioner has been levied fine of Rs.25,000/- on

the basis of having engaged in the unauthorised transportation of

river sand. Petitioner submits that he is innocent of the

allegations and that he was in possession of the original bill and

other documents which were detained by the police at the time of

seizure. It is also complained that copy of the seizure mahazar

has not been served on him.

2. A reading of Ext.P1 shows that none of the contentions

of the petitioner, whatever be its worth, have been considered by

the respondent. I also notice from Ext.P1 that despite the

mandatory provisions in the Rule for release of the vehicle on

payment of value and fine, value has not been ordered to be

WPC 31734/07
: 2 :

paid.

3. For these reasons, I cannot sustain Ext.P1 and

therefore Ext.P1 will stand quashed. The respondent shall

reconsider the matter with notice to the petitioner as

expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 2 weeks of receipt of

a copy of this judgment and an order as contemplated in rule 27

shall be passed.

4. In the meantime, it will be open to the petitioner to

make an application to the respondent for interim custody, in

which case the respondent shall consider the same subject to

imposition of appropriate conditions.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.

Rp