IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 13TH DECEMBER 2010 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 18093 of 2010(J) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- SUJISH S., AGED 28, S/O. SUBRAMANIAN, MALLAMPARAMBIL, VARAPPUZHA, PARAVUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.A.MOHAMMED SHAH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, ERNAKULAM. 2. ADDITIONAL SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VARAPPUZHA POLICE STATION, VARAPPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.T.K.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ WP(C).No. 18093 of 2010(J) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE R.C. BOOK OF THE PETITIONER'S VEHICLE 09/11/2003 P2: COPY OF THE VEHICLE SALE AGREEMENT WITH THE REGISTERED OWNER AND PETITONER DATED 23/12/2009. P3: COPY OF THE P FORM DATED 11/02/2010 P4:COPY OF THE DEALER'S LICENSE ISSUED IN FORM 'L' UNDER RULE 48 C OF KMMC RULES DATED 01/01/2010. P5: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ISSUED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 19/11/2009. P6: COPY OF THE SAND WAY BILL FORM ISSUED ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, NELLORE DATED 04/02/2010. P7: COPY OF THE SAND WAY BILL FORM ISSUED ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, NELLORE DATED 06/02/2010. P8: COPY OF THE PERMIT OF REMOVAL OF AUCTIONED RIVER SAND ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER CHERANALLORE DATED 10/09/09. P9: COPY OF THE PERMIT OF REMOVAL OF AUCTIONED RIVER SAND ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER CHERANALLORE DATED 11/09/09. P10: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 02/03/2010. P11: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC.6969/2010 DATED 04/03/2010. P12: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 08/04/2010. P13: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY K.U.KAREEM DTD.19/05/2010. P14: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY N.H.SHAMSUDEEN DTD.19/05/10. P15: COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 26/05/2010. svs/ ............2/-.... ...2... P16: COPY OF THE COMMUNICAITON OF GEOLOGIST, ERNAKULAM DATED 27/02/2010. P17: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 07/06/2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE svs/ ANTONY DOMINIC, J -------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No. 18093 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the owner of Mahindra Mini Tipper lorry bearing Reg.No.KL-7/AM 1580. On 11.2.2010 at about 2.00 p.m the 2nd respondent intercepted the vehicle, and registered a case on the allegation that the petitioner was transporting river sand, in violation of the provisions of Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. Proceedings were finalized by Ext.P15 order holding that the river sand was transported in the tipper lorry in violation of the provision of the Act and the petitioner was ordered to remit Rs.2,00,000/- being the value of the vehicle. It was also ordered that in the event of the petitioner not remitting the value fixed, the vehicle will be sold in auction. This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P15 order. 2. Main contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that the sand in question was purchased from a licensed dealer and that there was no proof that the sand was river sand. In so far as, the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that there was no proof that the sand in question was river sand is W.P.(C).No. 18093 OF 2010 2 concerned, in the impugned order itself that it is recorded that during the course of the hearing, the counsel for the petitioner conceded that what was transported in the vehicle was river sand which was purchased from a licensed dealer. Once the fact that the sand was river sand was admitted, they arise no question of any further proof of such an admitted fact. Although, it is stated in ground 'D' of the writ petition that the petitioner or his Advocate never admitted before the District Collector that the sand in the vehicle was river sand, apart from this averment in ground 'D', there is nothing to substantiate this plea raised in the writ petition. Further if as a matter of fact, an erroneous fact has been recorded in the impugned order, nothing prevented the petitioner or his Advocate from bringing that fact to the notice of the District Collector. That was not done. Further the counsel, who appeared before the District collector also has not filed any affidavit before this Court to the effect that what is stated in the impugned order is incorrect. Therefore, the petitioner's bald assertion cannot be accepted in its face value, and I would rather go by what is stated in Ext.P15 order and reject the contention of the petitioner. Further, in Ext.P15, the statement of the Sub Inspector of Police, who seized the vehicle, that at the time of its W.P.(C).No. 18093 OF 2010 3 seizure, water was dripping from the sand is recorded and this also indicates that sand in question cannot be anything other than river sand. 3. In so far as, the plea of the petitioner that sand in question was purchased from a licensed dealer is concerned, it is mentioned in the impugned order that this Court has already imposed a prohibition of private parties dealing in river sand. If that be so, that theory canvassed by the petitioner cannot be factually correct. In any case, nothing has been produced in this writ petition to find that this factual findings of the District collector is erroneous. 4. Therefore, I do not find any merit in both contentions raised by the petitioner. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE dmb