IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 32252 of 2007(M)
1. ALI AKBAR K.K., S/O MOIDEENKUTTY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
... Respondent
2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.P.SUDHEER
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :05/11/2007
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(C) No. 32252 OF 2007 M
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 5th November, 2007
J U D G M E N T
Ext. P4 is the order under challenge. Proceedings
were initiated against the petitioner’s vehicle
bearing registration No. KL-55A/1934 and that
culminated in Ext. P4 order of the District Collector.
2. From a reading of Ext. P4 it is evident that
the allegation was that there was an attempt to load
river sand, that on knowing that the police party are
arriving, the vehicle was sped away and that the
vehicle was intercepted later and proceedings were
initiated. The order does not say that there was
actual loading of river sand or transportation of the
same.
3. Despite this, petitioner has been found to have
violated Rule 29(8) of the Kerala Protection of River
W.P.(C) No. 32252OF 2007 -2-
Banks & Regulation of Removal of Sand Rules, 2002 and
on that finding, the value of the vehicle of Rs.
35,000/- is ordered to be realised and Rs.25,000/- is
imposed as fine. It is this order that is under
challenge.
4. The main contention raised by the petitioner is
that in the absence of actual transportation of river
sand, he could not have been levied the value or fine
in terms of the powers conferred on the District
Collector. It is also stated that Rule 29(8) which is
found to have been violated by the petitioner is
totally alien to the facts of the case.
5. I have gone through Ext. P4 order and I am
inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the
petitioner that all that is found is that there was an
attempt on the part of the vehicle for loading of river
sand. Rule 29(8) which is found to have been violated
by the petitioner only provides that those who purchase
river sand shall obtain a pass and keep the same and
shall not transport or keep the sand at any place,
without the said pass. On the allegations that have
raised against the petitioner this rule is not
W.P.(C) No. 32252OF 2007 -3-
attracted at all.
6. Even otherwise, in the absence of a finding
that there has been loading and transportation of
river sand, Rule 27 is totally inapplicable. In view
of this, Ext. P4 proceedings is totally unsustainable
and the said order is liable to be quashed and I do so.
Any deposit that is made by the petitioner shall
necessarily be released. The writ petition is
allowed.
ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
jan/-