IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 28TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 3521 of 2009(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.P.ASHRAF , S/O.MOIDUPPA, CHOLAKKAPALLIYALIL VEEDU, P.O.PALATHOL, ELAMKULAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.DEVIDAS.U.K RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE THAHASILDAR, PERINTALMANNA. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ----------------------- W.P.(C).No.3521 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of February, 2009. JUDGMENT Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P2. 2. Ext.P2 is an order passed by the first respondent exercising his powers under the provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Banks & Regulation of Removal of Sand Act. In Ext.P2 it has been found that the Mini Lorry bearing registration No. KL-09/J/6849 belongs to the petitioner was engaged in the unauthorized transportation of river sand. On that basis Rs.90,000/- was fixed as value of the vehicle and the said amount is ordered to be remitted to the River Management Fund. 3. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the sand in question was not transported from any river or Kadavu and that it was transported at the request of the owner from where it was already collected. Even then the fact WP(c).No.3521/09 2 remains that transportation of the sand could not have been done without a valid pass. Admittedly the petitioner was not possessing a pass. If that be so, the finding entered by the District Collector is only to be accepted. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was not given an opportunity to prove his innocence. First of all anything has been placed on record to show that any such opportunity has been sought. Further, the final order itself show that the the petitioner was heard. If that be so, there is no substance in the case of the petitioner that the case has not been adjudicated in the manner required of a quasi judicial authority. 5. Next contention is regarding the value of the vehicle fixed as Rs.90,000/-. The lorry in question is a 2001 model vehicle. Therefore the value fixed cannot be held to be exorbitant warranting interference. Therefore, I am not persuaded to interfere with the writ Petition. 6. Having regard to the financial constraints of the WP(c).No.3521/09 3 petitioner I permit the petitioner to remit the amount of Rs.90,000/- in 3 equal monthly installments, first of which will be paid on or before 28th February, 2009 and the 2nd and 3rd instalments shall be paid on or before 28th of March and 28th of April, 2009. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/