IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 18644 of 2009(A)
1. SURESH BABU,S/O.SREEDHARAN,AGED 35 YRS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,MALAPPURAM.
... Respondent
2. THE TAHSILDAR,PONNANI TALUK.
3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,PONNANI
4. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
For Petitioner :SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :17/07/2009
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J.
----------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.18644 of 2009
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of July, 2009.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of a
temp bearing registration No.KL-5J-9319. The said
vehicle was seized by the 2nd respondent on 4.3.2009
when it was found to be transporting river sand
without the authority of a pass. The vehicle was
thereafter produced before the District Collector, who
initiated proceedings under the Kerala Protection of
River Banks (Protection and Regulation of removal of
sand) Act, 2002.
2. The petitioner requested for release of the
vehicle on interim custody and the petitioner’s
application in this behalf was directed to be considered
by this court in W.P.(C)No.7421/09. Subject to certain
conditions, the vehicle has been released on interim
custody.
W.P.(C).No.18644 of 2009
:: 2 ::
3. Thereafter, the District Collector heard the
petitioner on 13.4.2009. Though, originally the
petitioner had taken up a contention that the
consignment was supported by a pass, later before the
District Collector, he admitted in categoric terms that
his driver had transported sand without the authority
of a pass. He only pleaded that the lapse may be
condoned.
4. The District Collector has considered
various aspects elaborately. It is concluded that the
consignment was without authority of a pass and in
the circumstances, infraction of the provisions of the
Sand Act has been proved.
5. The vehicle is a 2000 model mini lorry and
the District Collector has not committed any error in
fixing the value of the vehicle. It is to be deposited by
the petitioner towards River Management Fund, to
avoid confiscation. An amount of Rs.1 lakh is a fair
W.P.(C).No.18644 of 2009
:: 3 ::
and reasonable value of the vehicle. There are no
mitigating circumstances pointed out by the petitioner.
For all these reasons, I find no error in Ext.P1
and it does not warrant any interference. Writ petition
is accordingly dismissed. But, it is made clear that if
the petitioner pays the amount as per the directions in
Ext.P1 within six weeks from today, such payment
shall be treated as sufficient compliance with the
directions issued in Ext.P1.
Sd/-
(V.GIRI)
JUDGE
sk/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge