IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2008 / 9TH MAGHA 1929 W.P.(C) No. 3112 of 2008(U) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- A.GANESH, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.AMBI, KIZHAKKEVEEDU, AMANCOIL JUNCTION, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR SRI.S.MANIKANTAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (L.R), COLLECTORATE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. I.V. PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 3112 OF 2008 U = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 29th January, 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext. P4. In this case, a lorry bearing registration No. KEV 5972 was proceeded against on the allegation that it was engaged in the unauthorised transportation of river sand. According to the petitioner, the sand in question was brought from Tamil Nadu and Ext. P1 is said to be the entry pass at the check post. It is stated that after detaining the lorry, the petitioner was not served any mahazar or notice of hearing, but however, was served with Ext. P4. a laconic order requiring the petitoiner to pay a fine of Rs.45,000/- to release the vehicle. It is challenging Ext. P4 order, this writ petition has been filed. 2. The case was adjourned at the request of the learned Govt. Pleader to obtain instructions in the matter. It is fairly conceded W.P.(C) No. 3112 OF 2008 -2- before me that the petitioner was not heard and that the District Collector has not passed even a speaking order as contemplated in Rule 27 of the Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Rules, 2002. According to the learned Govt. Pleader, based on an endorsement made by the District Collector on the file, Ext. P4 communication has been issued. 3. In terms of Rule 27 of the Rules mentioned above, it is for the District Collector to hear the parties and then decide on the guilt or otherwise of the petitioner. This necessarily is a quasi-judicial exercise of power and cannot be done by a mere endorsement on the file and that too without issuing notice to the affected parties. He is expected to hear the parties and pass a reasoned order. Since this requirement has not been complied with, Ext. P4 cannot be sustained and it is accordingly quashed. 4. It is directed that the 2nd respondent shall issue notice to the petitioner, hear him and pass a fresh reasoned order in the matter. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 10 days of production of a copy of this judgment. In the meantime, if the petitioner so desires, he may furnish adequate security, such as property security and seek release of the vehicle W.P.(C) No. 3112 OF 2008 -3- pending finalisation of the proceedings. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-