IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 1389 of 2010()
1. UMMER K
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECOTR
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.J.CHELAMESWAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :13/08/2010
O R D E R
J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.N.Ravindran, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.A.No. 1389 OF 2010
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 13th day of August, 2010
JUDGMENT
J.Chelameswar, C.J.
Aggrieved by judgment dated 13.07.2010 the unsuccessful
petitioner in W.P.(C) No.1389 of 2010 has preferred this appeal.
2. By order dated 10.06.2010, the District Collector,
Malappuram found the appellant herein guilty of transporting
river sand illegally using his vehicle bearing Registration No.KL-
10/AE-762 and therefore ordered confiscation of the
abovementioned vehicle. However, as per Rule 27(3) of the
Kerala Protection of River Banks & Regulation of Removal of Sand
Rules, 2002 the District Collector permitted the appellant herein
to redeem the vehicle on payment of the value of the vehicle
which was fixed at Rs.5,30,000/-. Challenging the said order,
the abovementioned writ petition came to be filed which was
dismissed by the judgment under appeal.
3. The only submission made by the learned counsel for
the appellant is that the vehicle in question was not transporting
river sand but ordinary sand and therefore, the provisions of the
WA No. 1389 of 2010
-:2:-
abovementioned Act and Rules do not apply.
4. The question whether the vehicle was carrying river
sand or ordinary sand is a question of fact. Nothing is brought to
our notice from the record that the petitioner has taken such a
stand at any stage during the pendency of the confiscation
proceedings. On the other hand, it appears from Ext.P2 order
that the appellant herein pleaded guilty in the proceedings before
the Collector. No contemporaneous piece of evidence is available
on record or brought to our notice to establish that such a finding
is inconsistent with the the stand taken by the appellant in the
proceedings for confiscation.
In the circumstances, we do not see any reason to interfere
with the judgment under appeal. The appeal is therefore
dismissed at the admission stage.
J.Chelameswar,
Chief Justice.
P.N.Ravindran,
Judge.
ttb
WA No. 1389 of 2010
-:3:-