IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 4TH JULY 2008 / 13TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 35800 of 2005(J) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ THE SECRETARY, TARUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, P.O.TARUR, PALGHAT DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.C.JAMES RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALGHAT. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, ALATHUR, PALGHAT DISTRICT. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL – R1, R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).35800/2005-J APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE GOODS CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED BY THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, ALATHUR, DATED 04/10/2001. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE FORM P7 PASS ISSUED FOR TRANSPORTING SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 18/12/2005. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 17/12/2005. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL // TRUE COPY // Rs/ K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.35800 OF 2005 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ The petitioner is the owner of a tractor bearing registration No.KL-9/J 7741. The said vehicle was seized by the Tahsildar, Alathur, on the allegation that it was used for transporting river sand illegally on 8.12.2005. The petitioner submits that the transporting of sand was undertaken on the strength of Ext.P2, pass, issued in respect of that vehicle valid from 11.5 a.m to 2 p.m on 8.12.2005. So, the seizure is illegal. But, without affording an opportunity to the petitioner to present his case, the matter was disposed of, by the 1st respondent, District Collector, by imposing a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. The petitioner submits that the Collector has no power or authority to impose a fine. He may in appropriate case confiscate the vehicle. Further, the order was passed without hearing the petitioner. 2. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit supporting the impugned order. But, they have no case that the W.P.(C) No.35800/2005 2 petitioner was given notice regarding the allegation, that he was given an opportunity to represent against it and thereafter the impugned order was passed. 3. In view of the said position, the grievance of the petitioner that the order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice has to be accepted. Accordingly, Ext.P3 is quashed. The 1st respondent, District Collector, is directed to pass fresh orders in the matter, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, within three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. The bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner, as per the interim order of this Court, dated 22.12.2005, shall be kept alive till final orders are passed by the District Collector. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) ps