IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2011 / 28TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 28318 of 2009(H) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- NEZEEMA BEEVI, W/O. ALIYARUKUTTY, SUDHEER MANZIL, CHOZHIYODU P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.M.ZIYAD, SRI.SANU.S.PANICKER. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT (REVENUE), SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM. 3. S.I. OF POLICE, KADAKKAL POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 4. SAIFUDEEN, PROPRIETOR, ACHUS TRAVELS, P.P.VII/640, THOLIKUZHI, ADAYAMON P.O. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. ARAVINDKUMAR BABU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.28318/2009-H: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE FIR AND SEIZURE MAHAZAR DTD. 21/08/2009 PREPARED BY THE R.3. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE CST REMITTANCE PRODUCED BY THE DRIVER BEFORE THE R.3. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.2. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY TO THE R.4. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF R.C. BOOK. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.28318 OF 2009(H) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P4. Ext.P4 is an order passed by the District Collector exercising his powers under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. By this order, petitioner, who is the registered owner of the lorry bearing registration No.KL-02-D/3990 was found to be used the vehicle in violation of the Act. Proceeding further District Collector permitted the petitioner to compound the offence by remitting Rs.25,000/- as fine. It is this order which is under challenge. 2. As already pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner there is no provision in the Act enabling the District Collector to compound the offense in the manner as done in Ext.P4. On the other hand, if the authority under the Act finds that the vehicle is used in violation of the Act, confiscation is the consequence and owners are normally given freedom to get the vehicle released on payment of the value fixed. In that view of the matter, Ext.P4 is clearly illegal and therefore I quash the same. Now that the Act WPC.No. 28318/09 :2 : has been amended with effect from 14.6.2010, conferring power of adjudication on the Sub Divisional Magistrate, it is directed that on the production of a copy of the judgment the 2nd respondent will make over the files to the concerned Sub Divisional Magistrate who shall reconsider the matter and pass fresh orders with notice to the petitioner and in accordance with the provisions of the Act. An order shall be passed within 2 months of production of a copy of the judgment. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/