IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 32242 of 2009(A)
1. AJITH, S/O.VIJAYAN, AGED 39 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR,
... Respondent
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.RAJIT
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :15/12/2009
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN,J.
—————————————-
W.P.(C) No. 32242 of 2009 – A
—————————————-
Dated 15th December, 2009
Judgment
Heard Sri.Rajit, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Sri.P.Narayanan, the learned Government
Pleader for the respondents.
2. The petitioner is the registered owner of a goods
vehicle bearing registration No.KL/55A-5640. The said vehicle
was seized by the second respondent on 17.5.2009 on the
allegation that it was used to transport river sand without a
valid pass. A report was thereupon submitted to the District
Collector, Thrissur who initiated proceedings under the Kerala
Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand
Act, 2001 and the Rules framed thereunder. The District
Collector thereafter heard the petitioner and passed Ext.P3
order dated 25.9.2009 ordering confiscation of the petitioner’s
vehicle. The District Collector however permitted the petitoiner
to avoid confiscation by paying the sum of Rs.7,25,000/- fixed
as the value of the vehicle by the Joint Regional Transport
Officer. Ext.P3 is under challenge in this writ petition.
W.P.(C) No.32242/2009 2
3. The petitioner contends that the sand transported in
his vehicle was sand purchased from the State of Tamilnadu
and that it was accompanied by a valid pass. He contends that
the said pass was seized by the second respondent but, not
forwarded to the District Collector. He also contends that the
District Collector has not adverted to the various grounds
raised by him at the time of hearing. The petitioner has a
further contention that his vehicle can be confiscated only if he
is successfully prosecuted under section 20 of the Act.
Reliance is placed on the decision of a learned single Judge of
this Court in Ahammedkutty v. State of Kerala (2008 (1)
KLT 1068) in support of the said contention.
4. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the
files leading to Ext.P3 were produced by the learned
Government Pleader. The file disclose that the petitioner had
submitted an application dated 28.5.2009 before the District
Collector, Thrissur wherein he had stated that the sand
transported in his vehicle was the sand brought in another
vehicle which could not ply along the road where his vehicle
was plying. He had also stated therein that he had applied for
permission to transport sand, that the District Collector had
W.P.(C) No.32242/2009 3
informed him that it is enough if he produces the pass issued
from the State of Tamilnadu in the Police Station enroute and
that based on the said advise he had obtained the permission
of the Sub Inspector of Police, Vadanappally. In the said
representation, the petitioner had no case that the pass which
accompanied the sand transported in his vehicle was taken into
custody by the Sub Inspector of Police and destroyed. Later,
the petitioner filed another representation dated 25.6.2009
wherein also he had no such case. In the said representation
also his case was that the sand transported in his vehicle was
sand brought from the State of Tamilnadu. In the
representation dated 4.6.2009 also, the petitioner had no case
that the sand transported in his vehicle was covered by a valid
pass and that it was seized and destroyed by the Police
officers. The files disclose that the District Collector has in
Ext.P3 held that though the petitioner had contended before
him that sand transported in his vehicle was sand purchased
and brought from the State of Tamilnadu, the petitioner has not
been able to substantiate the said contention by producing any
document in support of the said plea. Though the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner contends with reference to
W.P.(C) No.32242/2009 4
Ext.P2 delivery note that the sand transported in his vehicle
was covered by that delivery note, the learned counsel fairly
conceded that the delivery note will not prove that the
petitioner’s vehicle had crossed the border checkpost on its
way from the State of Tamilnadu to Vadanappally. Apart from
relying on Ext.P2, the petitioner had not produced any material
even to indicate that his vehicle was used to transport river
sand brought from the State of Tamilnadu to the State of
Kerala. In the absence of any cogent material to substantiate
the petitioner’s contention that the sand transported in his
vehicle was sand purchased from the State of Tamilnadu, the
finding in Ext.P3 that the petitioner was illegally transporting
river sand cannot be said to be any way vitiated. I therefore
find no ground to interfere with the finding in Ext.P3 that the
petitioner’s vehicle was used to transport river sand in violation
of the law.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner lastly
contended that the value fixed by the District Collector for his
vehicle is exorbitant. Ext.P1 Certificate of Registration disclose
that the petitioner obtained delivery of the vehicle on 6.7.2005.
The petitioner’s vehicle is only less than four years old. As the
W.P.(C) No.32242/2009 5
registered owner he should have been in possession of the
invoice issued by the dealer which will show the price at which
it was sold to the petitioner. The petitioner has no case that he
is not possession of the invoice issued by the dealer who sold
the vehicle to him. The best evidence to show the value of the
vehicle would have been the invoice issued by the dealer to the
petitioner. Apart from merely contending that the value fixed
by the District Collector for the vehicle is exorbitant, the
petitioner has not produced any material to show the invoice
value or the depreciated value of the vehicle. In such
circumstances, I am not persuaded to hold that the value fixed
by the District Collector for the vehicle, is exorbitant.
For the reasons stated above, I hold that there is no merit
in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly
dismissed.
P.N.RAVINDRAN
Judge
vaa