IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 17702 of 2009(G)
1. SUKUMARAN E.K. ESWARAMANGALATH HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TRISSUR.
... Respondent
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.M.BENZIR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :24/08/2009
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J.
----------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.17702 of 2009
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of August, 2009.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the registered owner of a
tipper lorry bearing registration No.KL-04/P-7133.
The vehicle was intercepted by the 2nd respondent on
3.5.2009 alleging illicit transportation of river sand.
According to the petitioner, the sand was being
transported with a valid pass. A copy of the same has
been produced as Ext.P1. The petitioner further
contends that the driver of the vehicle had handed
over the original of Ext.P1 pass to the Sub Inspector.
But, a copy of the seizure mahazar was not served on
him. Ultimately, the District Collector conducted an
enquiry and passed Ext.P4 order finding that there
was illicit transportation of river sand and directing
the petitioner to remit an amount of Rs.3,05,000/-
towards river management fund. This has been
challenged in this writ petition.
W.P.(C).No.17702 of 2009
:: 2 ::
2. Learned Government Pleader has
produced the files leading to Ext.P4. I heard learned
counsel for the petitioner and learned Government
Pleader.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the transportation of river sand was with
the aid of a pass and if that be so, it cannot be
considered as illicit.
4. Learned Government Pleader submits
that the photo copy of the pass itself shows that it was
tinkered with.
5. I find force in the submission of the
learned counsel for the petitioner that the District
Collector ought to have, at least, considered the
contention of the petitioner that the transportation of
river sand was supported by a pass issued earlier. On
a consideration, it might have been open to him to
reject the said contention, if there were materials to
show that the contention could not be accepted. But,
W.P.(C).No.17702 of 2009
:: 3 ::
an authority exercising quasi judicial power
cannot refuse to consider a vital contention and
then conclude that there was infraction of the
law.
6. In these circumstances, I am of the
view that the matter requires reconsideration by
the District Collector.
In the result, Ext.P4 is set aside and the
writ petition is disposed of directing the District
Collector to pass fresh orders in the matter of
confiscation/release of the vehicle bearing
registration No.KL-04/P-7133. It is open to the
petitioner to produce materials to show that the
transportation of river sand, on the date in
question, was legitimate and was supported by a
pass issued in that regard. The normal records
maintained by the dealer, on whose behalf Ext.P1
was issued, can also be produced before the
W.P.(C).No.17702 of 2009
:: 4 ::
District Collector to substantiate his contentions.
Fresh orders shall be passed within six weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
Sd/-
(V.GIRI)
JUDGE
sk/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge