IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2008 / 10TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 37064 of 2007(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ PURUSHOTHAMAN, S/O.APPUNNI, AGED 43, RESIDING AT PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, KORATTIKKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.HARISH R. MENON & K.T. SHYAM KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, PONNANI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHANGARAMKULAM POLICE STATION, CHANGARAMKULAM , MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 37064 & 37118 of 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated: January 30, 2008 JUDGMENT Ext.P2 in these cases are the orders issued by the District Collector exercising powers under Rule 27 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act and Rules finding that the lorries in question were involved in the unauthorised transportation of river sand. The contention that is raised by the counsel for the petitioners is that these orders are invalid for the reason that the explanation tendered by the respective owners have not been considered and that they were not issued any notice before final orders were passed. In WP(C) 37064/07, the explanation filed by the petitioner is Ext.P5 stating that he had a valid pass and that en route the vehicle had broken down and that caused the delay in reaching the destination. Similarly, in Ext.P4 explanation in WP(C) 37118/07 it is stated that the watchman at the Kadavu had wrongly noted the time of WP(C) 37064/07 Page numbers departure in the pass. 2. A reading of Ext.P2 orders in these cases show that none of these defences put forward by the respective petitioners have been dealt with by the 1st respondent while passing final orders. Therefore, these orders are to be held as passed without adverting to the contentions raised by the petitioners. It is also their complaint that they have not been heard before final orders were passed. 3. A Division Bench of this court in the decision in Alavi P.K. v. District Collector and others – ILR 2007 (4) Kerala 221 has held that before final orders are passed, notice should be given to the persons who are affected. In these cases that requirement also has not been complied with. 4. For these reasons Ext.P2 orders in these cases will stand quashed and the 1st respondent shall reconsider the matter and pass fresh orders with notice to the petitioners and affording them an opportunity of being heard. This shall be done by the 1st respondent as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within ten days from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. In the WP(C) 37064/07 Page numbers meantime, if the petitioners so desire, it will be open to them to seek temporary release of the vehicle on their furnishing security to the satisfaction of the 1st respondent. The writ petitions are disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-