IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 23RD MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 3899 of 2009(L) ------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ SUDHEESH, S/O. SUBRAMANYAN, CHATTIPARAMBIL HOUSE, VEETIKUTH, P.O. NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. (OWNER OF VEHICLE BEARING REG. NO. KL-10-AA/9137) BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.P.VENUGOPAL (1086/92) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/02/2009, ALONG WITH WPC NO.3903 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NOs. 3899 & 3903 OF 2009 ======================== Dated this the 12th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T The challenge in these writ petitions is against Ext.P2 orders passed by the District Collector exercising his powers under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. In these orders, it has been found that the autorickshaws bearing Regn.Nos.KL-10- AA/9137 and KL10-Y/1443 were engaged in the unauthorised transportation of river sand. 2. A reading of these orders show that at the time when the river sand was transported, there was no pass issued by the authorities. If that be so, the transportation was in violation of the provisions contained in the Act and the autorickshaws are liable to be proceeded against. 3. However, referring to the statement in the orders itself to the effect that the sand in question was being transported from a place where it was already transported and stored on the strength of a pass, learned counsel for the petitioners contend that there was no intention to evade any statutory provision. 4. It is true that a finding to that effect has been entered in Ext.P2. However, any transportation of river sand has to be on the WPC 3899 & 3903/09 :2 : strength of a pass issued by the authorities concerned. 5. In these cases, admittedly there was no pass and if that be so, the conclusions in the orders deserves to be upheld. However, having regard to the fact that it was a technical violation and that the vehicles involved are autorickshaws, I direct that the autorickshaw bearing Regn.No.KL-10/AA 9137 be released on the petitioner remitting Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) and the autorickshaw bearing Regn.No.KL-10-Y//1443 be released on the petitioner therein remitting Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) towards the River Management Fund. Writ petitions are disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp