IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 3583 of 2009(B)
1. ABDUL BASHEER, S/O.MAMMOO,PARAMBIL HOUSE
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY CHIEF SECRETARY,
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,MALAPPURAM DIST.
3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,KONDOTTI
4. SECRETARY,KAVANAN GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :20/02/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC,J.
-----------------------
W.P.(C).No.3583 OF 2009
------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of February, 2009.
JUDGMENT
Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P8.
2. Petitioner is the registered owner of the 2006
model Mini Lorry bearing Registration No.KL 10AA 955.
The vehicle was seized on 30.8.2008, on the allegation that
it was used for the transportation of river sand. By Ext.P8,
the District Collector found that the vehicle was used for
the transportation of river sand in violation of the Kerala
Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of
Sand Act. On the basis of the aforesaid conclusion, the
petitioner has been ordered to remit Rs.2,50,000/- being
the value of the vehicle to the River Management Fund. It is
challenging this order, that this writ petition is filed.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
transportation was on the basis of Ext.P3 pass and
WP(c).No.3583/09 2
therefore the proceedings initiated are totally unwarranted.
4. It would appear from Ext.P8 itself that this contention
was raised before the District collector. However, the
contention was rejected for the reason that, the Collector had
found that though pass was issued, the load lifted from the
designated Kadavu, was not registered in the Kadavu
Register maintained in terms of the Rules framed under the
Act. So long as in the Kadavu Register, particulars of the
vehicle are not mentioned, the only necessary inference is
that the vehicle has not reached in the Kadavu or that the
vehicle has not lifted any load from Kadavu in question.
Further, the Secretary of the Panchayat, who issued the pass
also has deposed before the District Collector that the
petitioner was transporting river sand from some other place.
It is on this factual materials that the District Collector has
concluded that the vehicle has been used for the
unauthorized transportation of river sand. These factual
conclusions are unassailable and therefore I do not find any
WP(c).No.3583/09 3
reason to accept the plea of the counsel for the petitioner that
Ext.P8 is illegal.
In so far as the value of the vehicle is concerned, being a
2006 model vehicle and as the value has been fixed on the
basis of the assessment made by the officers of the Motor
Vehicle Department, I see nothing to interfere with it.
Writ Petition fails and is dismissed.
(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/
WP(c).No.3583/09 4