IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 21721 of 2010(M)
1. SHAHUL HAMEED, AGED 28 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY CHIEF
... Respondent
2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
4. SECRETARY, THIRUNAVAYA GRAMA
For Petitioner :SRI.T.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :13/07/2010
O R D E R
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.21721 OF 2010
-------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of July, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner challenges Ext.P5 order passed by the District
Collector, Malappuram under the Kerala Protection of River Banks
and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act. By that order, after
finding that the petitioner was guilty of transporting river sand in
violation of the provisions of the Act and Rules, the petitioner was
directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- as value of the
vehicle towards River Management Fund. The petitioner’s
contention is that the sand was supported by Ext.P3 pass and
therefore, there was no occasion for the District Collector to find
that the petitioner was transporting river sand illegally.
2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also,
who points out that as per the seizure mahazar, the vehicle was
seized at 12.30 p.m. and in the pass produced by the petitioner,
the time of start of the vehicle with sand given is 2 p.m.
Therefore according to the learned Government Pleader Ext.P1 is
W.P.(c)No.21721/10 2
not one obtained in relation to the seized consignment.
3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.
Admittedly, in the seizure mahazar, the time of seizure is shown
as 12.30 p.m. on 23.2.2010. In Ext.P3, the starting time of the
vehicle is shown as 2 ‘O’ clock. That being so, if the sand in
question could not have been transported on the strength of
Ext.P3 pass. The petitioner has not chosen to challenge Ext.P1
seizure mahazar also. That being so, the statement in Ext.P1
seizure mahazar that the seizure was at 12.30 p.m. remains
unchallenged. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot
challenge Ext.P5 order on the strength of Ext.P3 pass. In
Ext.P5, the District Collector has found that the sand was river
sand and the petitioner did not have any evidence to show the
legality of the transport. The petitioner has also not approached
this Court with clean hands in so far as he tried to pass off a
pass issued for transport of sand at 2 ‘O’ clock as one relating to
the consignment seized at 12.30 p.m. In view of above
findings, I do not find any merit in the challenge against Ext.P5
order. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
acd
W.P.(c)No.21721/10 3
W.P.(c)No.21721/10 4