IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2008 / 3RD MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 2798 of 2008(G) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SIGI PAUL, S/O.P.V.PAULOSE, AGED 29 YEARS, BUSINESS, PILICKALAN HOUSE, CHERANELLUR.P.O PIN-683544, CHERANELLUR KARA, KOOVAPPADY VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT (OWNER OF THE VEHICLE BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL-7AE-8897). BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KODANADU POLICE STATION. 3. THE SECRETARY, KOOVAPPADI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 2798 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated: January 23, 2008 JUDGMENT Ext.P3 order of the 1 st respondent is under challenge. By this order it has been found that the petitioner's lorry was engaged in the unauthorised transportation of river sand and on that basis value and fine is levied on the petitioner. 2. The allegation raised against the petitioner was that while transporting river sand on the strength of a permit, more quantity than what was permitted in the permit was transported. It is seen from Ext.P3 order itself that while the pass was for transportation of 5 tons of river sand, the lorry carried an additional quantity of 6.110 tons. This means that more than double the quantity of authorised quantity was transported by the petitioner. It is also seen that in the representation filed by the petitioner, he has confessed the guilt and sought condonation of the offence committed. Even during the course of arguments the only submission made by the counsel for the petitioner is that the sand was loaded by the workers in the Kadavu for which the petitioner cannot be faulted. 3. From the facts of this case it is obvious that there was WP(C) 2798/08 Page numbers unauthorised transportation of river sand. Even if it is assumed that it was loaded by the workers as contended by the petitioner, still, transportation should have been only the quantity specified in the pass that was issued to the petitioner. Thus there is violation of the provisions of the Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act and Rules, 2002 attracting the penal provisions contained in Rule 27 framed under the Rules. Therefore, to that extent Ext.P3 deserves to be upheld and I do so. 4. What remains is that the value that has been fixed in respect of the vehicle in question. A reading of Ext.P3 also discloses that there was a valuation report issued by the Joint RTO , Perumbavoor. If an expert has valued the vehicle and that value has been accepted by the 1 st respondent, this court will not be justified in upsetting the said finding, and that too, in the absence of any material to suggest that the valuation is vitiated for any reason. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-