IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 13TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 22ND KARTHIKA 1930 OP.No. 619 of 2003(W) ----------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- JOBY JOSE, THEKKEPARAMBIL HOUSE, PANACHICKADU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAVINDRA BABU SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTAYAM, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHINGAVANAM POLICE STATION, CHINGAVANAM, KOTTAYAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.R.SABU THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.No. 619 of 2003(W) C.M.P. NO. 1019 OF 2003 IN O.P.619 OF 2003. PETITION FOR STAY DISMISSED. SD/- S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE 13.11.2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF SALE AGREEMENT DT. 12.4.2001 EXECUTED BY PETITIONER. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED 19.11.2002 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT GIVEN BY ONE MOHANAN BEFORE THE -DO-. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF ORDER UNDER SECTION 27(3) DATED 16.12.2002 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT NO. 21763 DATED 18.7.2002 ISSUED TO PRADEEP BY NATTAKOM GRAMA PANCHAYATH. EXT.P6 - TRUE COPY OF PASS ISSUED TO ONE PRADEEP FOR TRANSPORTATION OF SAND DT. 19.7.2002. EXT.P7 - TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DATED 3.12.2002 IN C.M.P. NO. 61542 OF 2002 IN O.P. NO. 36342 OF 2002 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE rhs S.SIRI JAGAN, J ================== O.P.No.619 of 2003 ================== Dated this the 13th day of November, 2008. J U D G M E N T In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging Ext.P4 order of the District Collector under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 & Rules, by which, for illegal transportation of river sand the petitioner has been directed to pay Rs.25,000/- as fine and Rs.85,000/- into the river management fund under Rule 27(3) of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Rules 2002. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner was not transporting sand illegally. According to the petitioner, he purchased the sand from a friend of his, who had excess sand after use. He would submit that his friend had filed Ext.P3 affidavit to the effect that he had sold the sand to the petitioner. 2. The learned Government Pleader would submit that, in so far as admittedly the petitioner was transporting river sand in his lorry and the said transportation was not accompanied by Form P as per the Act and Rules, the petitioner has committed O.P.No.619 of 2003 - 2 - the offence under the Act and Rules and therefore the petitioner is liable for penalty and payment into river management fund as directed in Ext.P4 order. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. Admittedly, in his vehicle, the petitioner was transporting river sand. The petitioner has no case that the transportation was accompanied by a P Form as prescribed under the Act and Rules. Therefore, clearly the transport was unauthorised. The Collector had considered the affidavit submitted by the so called friend of the petitioner and disbelieved the same. The petitioner had not cared to prove the said contention by examining the friend who according to the petitioner, sold the sand to him. Further the Collector had specifically recorded that, the petitioner had submitted that he would not repeat the same. Therefore the finding in Ext.P4 that the petitioner is guilty of unauthorised transport of river sand cannot be faulted. 5. However, a learned Judge of this Court has in W.P.(C) 11181 of 2004, after considering the Single Bench decision of this Court in Ahammed Kutty v. State of Kerala [2008(1) KLT 1068], held that the Collector had no power or authority to O.P.No.619 of 2003 - 3 - impose a fine, but upheld the demand for payment of an amount equivalent to the value of the vehicle towards river management fund. 6. I am fully agree with that decision. Therefore, following that judgment, while confirming the demand for Rs.85,000/- being the value of vehicle, as payment towards river management fund in Rule 27 of the Rules, I set aside that part of Ext.P4 order whereby petitioner has been directed to pay fine of Rs. 25,000/-. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs