IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 27778 of 2009(N)
1. RAFEEK, S/O. BEERU, AGED 35 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
... Respondent
2. THE C.I. OF POLICE,
3. THE S.I. OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.A.CHACKO
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :30/11/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-----------------------------------------
W.P(C) NO.27778 OF 2009
---------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of November, 2010
JUDGMENT
Petitioner challenges Ext.P6 order passed by the 1st
respondent exercising powers under Kerala Protection of
River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001.
Petitioner is the registered owner of a tipper lorry bearing
registration No.KL-2/V-1998. On 9.4.2009, the 2nd
respondent seized the vehicle on the allegation that the
lorry was used for transportation of river sand, in violation of
the provisions of the Act. The matter was reported to the 1st
respondent.
2. The 1st respondent issued notice to the petitioner
and heard him on 24.6.2009. Thereafter, Ext.P6 order was
issued, holding that the vehicle was used for illegal
transportation of river sand and that the same was liable for
confiscation. There was also ordered that if the petitioner
remits Rs.5,50,000/- being the value of the vehicle fixed by
W.P(C) NO.27778 OF 2009
2
the Joint Regional Transport Officer, the vehicle will be
released. This is the order which is under challenge.
3. According to the counsel, the sand was purchased
as per Ext.P2 invoice and it was transported on the strength
of Ext.P3 delivery note. It is his contention that though
these documents were made available to the District
Collector, he passed Ext.P6 order without adverting to Ext.P2
or Ext.P3.
4. However, both in Ext.P6 and in the counter
affidavit filed in this writ petition the categorical averment
made is that the petitioner did not produce any document
legitimising the transportation. Further, the petitioner has
not produced any evidence to substantiate his contention
that these documents were produced before the District
Collector. That apart, the learned Government Pleader, who
was obtained original files also referred me to the statement
given by the driver of the vehicle at the time when the
vehicle was seized, which shows that the driver had no case
W.P(C) NO.27778 OF 2009
3
that he was in possession of Ext.P2 or Ext.P3 at the time of
the seizure of the vehicle. Further, the statement filed by
the petitioner before the 1st respondent, also shows that the
petitioner did not refer to either Ext.P2 or Ext.P3. Thus the
factual findings in Ext.P6 and the averments in the counter
affidavit to prove that the petitioner did not produce Ext.P2
or Ext.P3 at any time before the 1st respondent.
5. That apart, counter affidavit also refers to the
amendment to Rule 38-B of the Tamilnadu Miner Mineral
Concession Rules which prohibits transportation of river
sand to out side the State. That amendment came into force
with effect from 25.8.2006 and if that be so, theory of the
petitioner that the sand was originally brought by his vendor
from Tamil Nadu is unbelievable. That apart, even if it is
resumed that the sand was purchased by the petitioner, the
petitioner has not produced any permit obtained from KMMC
Rules, which alone legitimizes transportation of river sand.
In view of these facts, the findings of the District Collector
W.P(C) NO.27778 OF 2009
4
that the vehicle in question was used for unauthorised
transportation of river sand cannot be faulted.
6. Then what remains is the correctness of the value
of the vehicle that is fixed in Ext.P6. Reading of Ext.P6
shows that the District Collector got the value of the vehicle
fixed by the Joint Regional Transport Officer and it is based
on such fixation, that value ordered to be remitted by the
petitioner. Nobody can dispute the competence of the Joint
Regional Transport Officer to fix the value of the vehicle.
Further there is also no material to conclude that the
valuation done is vitiated for any reason.
Writ petition is only to be dismissed and I do so.
ANTONY DOMINIC,
JUDGE
dmb