IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 14718 of 2010(L)
1. SANDEEP T.V., S/O. VASUDEVAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR.
For Petitioner :SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :24/05/2010
O R D E R
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C)No. 14718 of 2010
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 24th day of May, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner challenges Ext.P2 order passed by the
District Collector directing the petitioner to pay an amount
of Rs.1,00,000/- being the value of the vehicle seized,
towards River Management Fund, on a finding that the
petitioner has used the vehicle for illegal transportation of
river sand in violation of the Kerala Protection of River
Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 &
Rules. The petitioner’s contention is that the consignment
was supported by a valid pass which has been produced by
the petitioner as Ext.P1. Petitioner therefore submits that
Ext.P2 order without reference Ext.P1 is unsustainable.
2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader
also. He points out that as found by the District Collector,
Ext.P1 is a pass for transportation of ordinary sand and in
Ext.P2, the District Collector had got the sand examined by
W.P.(C)No. 14718 of 2010
2
the Geologist who reported that the same is of ‘riverine
origin’.
3. The counsel for the petitioner submits that no
sample had been taken by the District Collector and no
report of the Geologist has been obtained in respect thereof.
The learned Government Pleader points out that there is no
such contention in the writ petition.
4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.
5. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government
Pleader the petitioner has not chosen to make any averment
to the effect that no examination of sand was got done by
the Geologist as stated in Ext.P2 order. Without raising
appropriate pleadings in the writ petition the petitioner
cannot challenge Ext.P2 order on that ground. That being
so, the contention raised by the petitioner cannot be
countenanced. The District Collector found that the sand is
river sand which has not been disputed by the petitioner.
Admittedly Ext.P1 is a pass for transporting ordinary sand
W.P.(C)No. 14718 of 2010
3
and not river sand. That being so, clearly the petitioner had
been transporting river sand illegally as found by the
District Collector. The vehicle has been got valued by the
Joint Regional Transport Officer, which amount only has
been directed to be paid towards River Management Fund,
which is perfectly in accord with the Act and Rules.
Therefore there is no infirmity whatsoever in Ext.P2 order.
Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.
S. SIRI JAGAN
JUDGE
shg/