IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2009 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 7056 of 2009(B) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ RAJU, S/O.CHAKRAPANI, AGED 45, VILAYIL VEETTIL, PULIMATH VILLAGE, CHIRAYNKEEZHU TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.V.VIJULAL RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR, KILIMANNOOR POLICE STATION. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, CHIRAYINKEEZHU. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KODUVAZHANNUR. 5. ANILKUMAR, S/O.RAGHAVAN, ATHIYATHIVILA VEEDU, AILAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 7056 OF 2009 (B) ==================== Dated this the 11th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P4, an order passed by the Deputy Collector (LR) finding that the vehicle KL-7 E 4388 belonging to the petitioner was involved in the unauthorised transportation of river sand and on that basis, petitioner has been directed to remit Rs.25,000/-. 2. A reading of Ext.P4 order dated 18/2/2009 referred to above itself shows that the enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Collector and it would appear that the Collector has approved the value that is ordered to be paid. 3. In view of the provisions contained in the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001, it is the District Collector who is the designated authority to exercise the powers. However, in this case, the power of the District Collector is seen to have been exercised by the Deputy Collector. In my view, this is a clearly wrong procedure and for that procedure, Ext.P4 deserves to be set aside and I do so. 4. Writ petition therefore will stand disposed of quashing Ext.P4 WPC 7056/09 :2 : and directing that it will be open to the 1st respondent to issue notice, hear the petitioner and pass orders thereon. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that since 24/12/2008, the vehicle is under detention of the respondents and he seeks an order for its release. It is directed that if the petitioner is desirous of getting the vehicle released pending finalisation of the proceedings that are already pending, it will be open to the petitioner to make an application to the 1st respondent, and if such an application is made, the 1st respondent shall within 10 days of its receipt pass appropriate orders. Petitioner may produce a copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp