IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2010 / 25TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 18499 of 2010(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- OMANAKUTTAN, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. DIVAKARAN, ANANDHA BHAVANAM, MUTHUKULAM SOUTH, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ESM.KABEER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST, CIVIL STATION, ALAPPUZHA. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHERTHALA POLICE STATION, CHERTHALA. BY G.P.SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.18499 OF 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of JUNE, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext.P6 order of the District Collector, Alappuzha passed under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act. By that order, on a finding that the petitioner transported river sand in violation of the Act and Rules, the petitioner has been directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,85,000/- being the value of the vehicle towards River Management Fund. The petitioner’s contention is that the sand was not river sand but ordinary sand, which was supported by Ext.P2 Cash Memorandum. The petitioner submits that in Ext.P3 seizure mahazar itself, it has been specifically stated that at the time of seizure, the sand was accompanied by a Cash Memorandum in Form-P, which is Ext.P2. The petitioner would further submit that there is no clear evidence to show that the sand is river sand. The Geologist, who inspected the sand only opined that the sand has similarity to river sand. The petitioner W.P.(c)No.18499/10 2 submits that in Alappuzha area ordinary sand resembles river sand. Therefore, the petitioner would contend that Ext.P6 order finding that the sand is river sand is clearly unsustainable. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. The learned Government Pleader would submit that the petitioner has no case that the respondents were actuated by malafides in the matter. The Geologist after examining the sand came to the conclusion that it resembles river sand. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to prove otherwise, which the petitioner has not done. Therefore the learned Government Pleader strongly supports Ext.P6 order. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. The fact that the sand was accompanied by Ext.P2 Cash Memorandum is not disputed in Ext.P6 order. The finding in Ext.P6 order is that the sand is river sand and Ext.P2 Cash Memorandum issued for ordinary sand has been used to transport the river sand. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, the petitioner has no case of malafides against the respondents or the Geologist. This is not a criminal case where guilt has to be proved beyond a W.P.(c)No.18499/10 3 reasonable doubt. As such preponderance of probability would be sufficient for coming to the conclusion arrived at on the basis of the evidence available. The Geologist has opined that the sand resembles river sand. The petitioner has not been able to offset that opinion by producing any acceptable material. Therefore, I am unable to find that the finding in Ext.P6 that the sand is river sand is in any way wrong. No other contentions have been raised by the petitioner. Therefore, there is no merit in the challenge against Ext.P6 and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(c)No.18499/10 4 W.P.(c)No.18499/10 5