IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 38129 of 2007(L)
1. YAHIA, S/O.MUHAMMAD ALI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
... Respondent
2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.DILIP MOHAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :28/05/2009
O R D E R
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W. P (C) No. 38129 of 2007
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 28th May, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
The matter arises under the Kerala Protection of River Banks
and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. A lorry belonging to
the petitioner loaded with river sand was seized under the Act on the
allegation that the transportation is against the provisions of the Act
and Rules. After an earlier round of litigation, the same resulted in
Ext. P2 order of the District Collector, whereby it was found that the
transportation was in violation of the provisions of the Act and Rules.
Accordingly, the vehicle was confiscated and the petitioner was
directed to pay Rs. 55,000/- as value of the vehicle in lieu of
confiscation and he was also directed to pay Rs.25,000/- as fine. The
petitioner challenges Ext. P2 and consequential orders Exts.P3 and
P4. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner has not
violated any provisions of the Act or the Rules and therefore the
confiscation of the vehicle and levy of fine are unsustainable.
2. The learned Government Pleader, with the help of a counter
affidavit, opposes the contentions of the petitioner.
3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.
4. The petitioner himself admits that he did not possess any
valid pass for transportation of the sand. He has not been able to
satisfy me that such transportation of river sand was after complying
with the mandatory provisions of the Act and the Rules. Therefore, I
am not inclined to accept the contention of the petitioner that the
transportation of the river sand was after complying with the
provisions of the Act and Rules.
5. The petitioner has got another contention that as held by a
Division Bench of this Court in Sanjayan v. Tahsildar, 2007(4) KLT
597, no fine can be imposed by the District Collector under the
provisions of the Act in so far as such power vests exclusively with
W.P.C. No. 38129/07 -: 2 :-
the Magistrate, who tries an offence under the Act. Therefore,
according to the petitioner, the imposition of fine is clearly illegal.
Referring to the decisions of this Court in Alavi v. District Collector
and others, 2007(4) KLT 473 and Moosakoya v. State of Kerala,
2008(1) KLT 538, the learned Government Pleader would argue that
the District Collector has powers to impose fine also.
6. After going through those decisions, I am unable to find
anything therein contrary to the decision in Sanjayan’s case. That
being so, going by the Division Bench decision in Sanjayan’s case,
imposition of fine is clearly unsustainable. Accordingly, Ext. P2 to the
extent it imposes fine of Rs. 25,000/- on the petitioner is hereby set
aside. However, the direction to pay Rs.55,000/- as value of the
vehicle in lieu of confiscation is upheld.
7. The petitioner would submit that the petitioner had earlier
paid Rs.25,000/-. If the same is correct, the petitioner shall pay the
balance amount also within one month. If the petitioner does not pay
the same as directed above, it would be open to the respondents to
recover the same either by invoking the bank guarantee furnished by
the petitioner as per order dated 24-12-2007 in this writ petition or by
taking coercive proceedings as warranted by law.
The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/