IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 31674 of 2007(U)
1. BASHEER, S/O DAVOOD,
... 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. 31674 OF 2007 U
=====================
Dated this the 20th day of November, 2007
J U D G M E N T
Ext.P1 order of the respondent is under challenge.
2. The proceedings were initiated against the petitioner
following the seizure of his vehicle on the allegation that it was
engaged in unauthorised transportation of river sand. By the
impugned order, petitioner is ordered to remit Rs.2,50,000/- as
being the value of the vehicle and a fine of Rs.25,000/- towards
the River Management Fund for release of the vehicle.
3. The finding in Ext.P1 on the basis of which the
petitioner has been penalised is as follows:
In view of the contentions raised, I had called for the files
and the seizure mahazar dated 26/5/07 has been perused. What
WPC No.31674/07
: 2 :
is stated in the seizure mahazar is as follows:
A comparison of what is stated in the impugned order and
what is stated in the seizure mahazar shows that they are
materially different. If that be so, Ext.P1 discloses non
application of mind by the respondent.
4. That apart, it is the petitioner’s specific contention that
copy of the seizure mahazar was not given to him although it is
mandatory in terms of the provisions of the Act. This also is a
matter for the respondent to consider. In view of the
contradiction in what is stated in the impugned order and what is
stated in the seizure mahazar, I quash Ext.P1 order and remit the
matter back to the respondent to reconsider the same with
notice to the petitioner. If seizure mahazar has not been served
on the petitioner, that shall also be arranged to be served.
WPC No.31674/07
: 3 :
Thereafter petitioner shall be given notice and an opportunity of
hearing before final orders are passed.
5. 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.
6. Final orders shall be passed, as expeditiously as
possible, at any rate, within two weeks of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp