IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 16405 of 2010(A)
1. HARIDASAN, S/O. MUNDAN
... 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 MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :28/05/2010
O R D E R
S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
==================
W.P.(C).No. 16405 of 2010
==================
Dated this the 28th day of May, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner challenges Ext.P7 order of the District Collector,
Malappuram, passed under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and
Regulation of Removal of Sand Act. By that order, on a finding that the
petitioner has unauthorizedly transported river sand in violation of the
Act and Rules, the petitioner has been directed to pay an amount of
Rs.3,50,000/- as the value of the vehicle towards River Management
Fund. The petitioner’s contention is that the transport was supported
by Ext.P1 pass issued by the Kuttipuram Grama Panchayat and
therefore, there was no reason for the District Collector even to
suspect that the transport was illegal and unauthorized. The petitioner
also submits that the valuation of the vehicle is exorbitant and even if
this Court confirms the finding of guilt, the amount to be paid is liable
to be reduced.
2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader and
considered the contentions of both parties.
3. In Ext.P7 order, the District Collector has specifically found
that at the time of seizure, the sand was not accompanied by any
documents whatsoever. The petitioner has no case that the sand is not
river sand. Therefore, I need consider only whether Ext.P1 pass
w.p.c.16405/10 2
supports the transport. The petitioner would contend that Ext.P1 is a
pass for transport of river sand. But from Ext.P1, I find that that is in
respect of ………………….. (ordinary sand). The petitioner has no
case that …………… …… is ………………. (river sand). Therefore,
clearly Ext.P1 pass does not support the transport in question. As
such, the petitioner has not been able to satisfy me that the finding
regarding the liability in Ext.P7 is in anyway vitiated. From Ext.P7 it is
clear that the valuation was fixed by the Joint RTO as per his report
dated 6.3.2010. I have no reason to assume that the same is in any
way inflated or excessive. The petitioner has not produced any
material in support of his contention that the value fixed is not the
actual value of the vehicle. For the above reasons, I do not find any
merit in the challenge against Ext.P7 order and accordingly, the writ
petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
///True copy///
P.A. to Judge