IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2010 / 17TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20865 of 2010(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- VENUGOPALA KURUP,S/O.PARAMESWARAN PILLAI MANNATH HOUSE,MUZHUKEER,KALLISSERY.P.O, CHENGANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) SRI.M.SUNILKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE TAHSILDAR,CHENGANNUR. 3. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 20865 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 8th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext.P4 order passed by the District Collector under the the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act. By that order, after finding that the vehicle has been used for illegal transportation of river sand, the possessor of the vehicle has been directed to pay an amount of Rs.2 lakhs as being the value of the vehicle towards river management fund. The petitioner challenges Ext.P4 order in this writ petition. 2. The petitioner raises the following contentions: First of all, being the registered owner of the vehicle, the petitioner ought to have been afforded an opportunity of being heard, which had not been given by the District Collector. According to him, there was no sand in the vehicle. Therefore, there was no occasion for the District Collector to find that the vehicle was illegally transporting river sand. The learned Government Pleader submits that as is clear from the mahazar, the inspecting party found that sand was being loaded in two vehicles and when the drivers saw the inspecting party, they drove off the vehicles and when the inspection party chased the vehicles, the drivers abandoned the vehicles in the nearby property and ran off. The learned Government Pleader points out that the conduct of w.p.c.20865/2010 2 the drivers itself is more than sufficient to conclude that they were illegally transporting river sand. He further submits that the driver who was afforded an opportunity of being heard took the contention before the District Collector that the sand was being transported for the purpose of SNDP, which also would go to show that the driver had no contention that there was no sand in the vehicle. He points out that as per the Act and Rules, only the person in possession of the vehicle requires to be heard and the driver who was in possession of the vehicle at the time of seizure was heard. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, only the person in possession of the vehicle requires to be heard as per the Act and Rules. Admittedly, the driver was afforded an opportunity of being heard. The driver was in possession of the vehicle at the time of seizure. Therefore, there is no merit in the first contention. The petitioner heavily relies on the mahazar to show that although there is a specific statement in the mahazar that the other vehicle contained sand, there is no reference of sand in respect of the petitioner's vehicle. Therefore, the District Collector could not have validly concluded that the vehicle was transporting sand illegally, is the contention raised by the petitioner. But that contention is belied by the mahazar. In the mahazar it is specifically stated that at the time when w.p.c.20865/2010 3 the inspecting party went to Thiruvan Vandoor Maliyil Kadavu, the petitioner's vehicle along with other vehicle was being loaded with river sand and on seeing the inspecting party, both drivers drove off the vehicles and when the inspecting party chased them, they abandoned the vehicles in the nearby property and ran off. In respect of this aspect there is no denial in the writ petition at all. Further, in Ext.P4 there is a specific statement that both the drivers took the contention that the sand was for the purpose of SNDP. After the driver having admitted so, I do not think that the petitioner can now raise a claim that the vehicle did not contain any sand. Therefore, there is no merit in the contentions of the petitioner against Ext.P4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge