IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 3112 of 2008(U)
1. A.GANESH, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.AMBI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
3. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (L.R), COLLECTORATE
For Petitioner :SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :29/01/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(C) No. 3112 OF 2008 U
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 29 th January, 2008
J U D G M E N T
The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext. P4. In this
case, a lorry bearing registration No. KEV 5972 was proceeded
against on the allegation that it was engaged in the unauthorised
transportation of river sand. According to the petitioner, the sand
in question was brought from Tamil Nadu and Ext. P1 is said to be
the entry pass at the check post. It is stated that after detaining the
lorry, the petitioner was not served any mahazar or notice of
hearing, but however, was served with Ext. P4. a laconic order
requiring the petitoiner to pay a fine of Rs.45,000/- to release the
vehicle. It is challenging Ext. P4 order, this writ petition has been
filed.
2. The case was adjourned at the request of the learned Govt.
Pleader to obtain instructions in the matter. It is fairly conceded
W.P.(C) No. 3112 OF 2008 -2-
before me that the petitioner was not heard and that the District
Collector has not passed even a speaking order as contemplated in
Rule 27 of the Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal
of Sand Rules, 2002. According to the learned Govt. Pleader, based
on an endorsement made by the District Collector on the file, Ext.
P4 communication has been issued.
3. In terms of Rule 27 of the Rules mentioned above, it is for
the District Collector to hear the parties and then decide on the guilt
or otherwise of the petitioner. This necessarily is a quasi-judicial
exercise of power and cannot be done by a mere endorsement on
the file and that too without issuing notice to the affected parties.
He is expected to hear the parties and pass a reasoned order.
Since this requirement has not been complied with, Ext. P4 cannot
be sustained and it is accordingly quashed.
4. It is directed that the 2nd respondent shall issue notice to
the petitioner, hear him and pass a fresh reasoned order in the
matter. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate
within 10 days of production of a copy of this judgment. In the
meantime, if the petitioner so desires, he may furnish adequate
security, such as property security and seek release of the vehicle
W.P.(C) No. 3112 OF 2008 -3-
pending finalisation of the proceedings.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
jan/-