IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 31262 of 2010(G)
1. VINOD.V.T., AGED 40 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
... Respondent
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
3. THE GEOLOGIST,
4. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LR),
For Petitioner :SRI.JOBI JOSE KONDODY
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :12/10/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO.31262 OF 2010(G)
--------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of October, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P7 final order
passed by the District Collector exercising his powers under the
Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of
Sand Act. By this order it has been held that the lorry bearing
registration No.KL-5 Y 4358 belonging to the petitioner was used
for unauthorized transportation of river sand. On that basis the
vehicle is held to be liable for confiscation and the petitioner has
been given liberty to redeem the same by remitting the value of
the vehicle.
2. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the District Collector has concluded the issue
mainly relying on the report of the Geologist, a copy of which is
Ext.P6. It is contended that Ext.P6 is not a conclusive report and
therefore the petitioner had represented to sent sample of the
sand for examination by the Director of Mining and Geology. It is
stated that without such examination the District Collector ought
not have decided the issue. It is also contended by the counsel for
WPC.No.31262 /2010
:2 :
the petitioner that the sand in question was purchased from a
dealer who has licence to deal in river sand. For that reason also
the order of confiscation is illegal
3. In so far as the report of the Geologist relied on by the
District Collector is concerned, a reading of Ext.P6 report shows,
it was found that the sand in question is a mixture of river sand
and sand manufactured by washing of weathered rock. Thus
presence of river sand is evident from the report in question.
Further examination by the Director of Mining and Geology was
recommended only for determining the ratio of river sand and not
for determining the presence of the river sand. Therefore the
report concludes the presence of the river sand. If so, there was
no reason to send the sample for further analysis. Hence
acceptance of Ext.P6 and the decision taken by the District
collector as per Ext.P7 relying on Ext.P6 cannot be faulted.
4. In so far as the contention of the petitioner that the sand
in question was purchased from a dealer who had stocked river
sand and that therefore the petitioner could not have been
faulted is concerned, in the absence of any material to
substantiate the plea, the said contention cannot be accepted.
WPC.No.31262 /2010
:3 :
That apart if the river sand was the material that the petitioner
had purchased there is absolutely no explanation about the
presence of sand manufactured by washing of weathered rock in
the lorry in question.
5. Therefore Ext.P7 order passed by the District Collector is
to be upheld and I do so.
Writ Petition fails and is dismissed.
(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/