Loading...

Thomaskutty Abraham vs District Collector on 4 February, 2008

Kerala High Court
Thomaskutty Abraham vs District Collector on 4 February, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 2469 of 2008(R)


1. THOMASKUTTY ABRAHAM,S/O.KOCHUKUTTY
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
                       ...       Respondent

2. SUB COLLECTOR,THIRUVALLA.

3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.R.GIREESH VARMA

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :04/02/2008

 O R D E R
                               ANTONY DOMINIC, J.


                ------------------------------------


                             W.P.(C)  2469 of  2008


                -------------------------------------


                            Dated: February 4, 2008



                                     JUDGMENT

Ext.P2 is a mahazar prepared on 13.8.2007 seizing a country

boat belonging to the petitioner on the allegation of unauthorised

transportation of river sand. It is stated by the petitioner that after

the seizure, he had no notice of further proceedings. It is stated that

in October 2007, he was served with Ext.P1 order issued by the Sub

Collector directing to remit Rs.2 lakhs towards the value of the

country boat and Rs.25000/- towards fine. It is challenging Ext.P1

that this writ petition has been filed.

2. Rule 27 of the Protection of River Banks and Regulation of

Removal of Sand Act and Rules, 2002 is the only provision of the

rules allowing realisation of the value of the country boat and levy of

fine. This rule provides that the District Collector shall exercise

powers provided in the Rules. A reading of Ext.P1 shows that it

does not show that the 1st respondent has exercised the power so

conferred on him. In the absence of any enabling provision, the 1st

WP(C) 2469/2008

Page numbers

respondent cannot delegate his power and hence, the 1st respondent

should not have delegated the power to the 2nd respondent.

Therefore, Ext.P1 order requiring the petitioner to remit the value

and fine issued by the 2nd respondent is without jurisdiction. Hence

Ext.P1 will stand quashed.

The 1st respondent shall issue notice to the petitioner herein

and pass fresh orders in accordance with Rule 27 of the Protection

of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Rules, 2002.

This shall be done as expeditiously as possible in the event of

production of a copy of this judgment.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

mt/-

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information