IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2010 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 14693 of 2010(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SUSHILKUMAR,S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR, AGED 41 YEARS,MAMPATTA HOUSE,SHORANUR(P.O), SHORNUR DESOM,SHORANUR VILLAGE,OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT(OWNER OF A LORRY BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL-13-E-729). BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,THRISSUR. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADAKKANCHERRY POLICE STATION,THRISSUR DISTRICT. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 14693 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 27th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext.P5 order of the 1st respondent passed under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act. By that order, the District Collector found that the petitioner has used his vehicle for unauthorisedly transporting river sand in violation of the Act and Rules. Therefore, the petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs.75,000/- in addition to the Rs.50,000/- deposited by the petitioner for interim custody of the vehicle, as value of the vehicle towards River Management Fund, for the violation found. The petitioner raises two contentions. First is that the sand was not river sand and he had pass for transporting sand. The second is that there is no proper valuation of the vehicle. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. He would submit that Ext.P1 pass appears to be a bogus one since it does not contain any seal or signature of the issuing authority. He also submits that even otherwise, the District Collector has given cogent reasons why the same could not be relied upon, which have not been controverted by the petitioner. 3. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. 4. As far as the guilt of the petitioner, what the District w.p.c.14693/10 2 Collector has found is as follows; “According to the party there was valid pass for transportation of sand and the seized sand was ordinary sand and not river sand. The party has produced copy of a pass allegedly issued for transportation of ordinary sand in the vehicle. The pass was for transporting ordinary sand from Kodumbu of Palakkadu District to Paravoor. This vehicle was seized from Ottupara by S.I of Police, Wadakkancherry and the alleged pass was shown to the S.I. and the S.I. in his seizure mahasser rightly pointed out that the there is no necessity to go to Ottupara for going from Kodumbu to Paravoor. At the time of hearing when questioned about this it is admitted by the party that there was no valid pass for transportation of sand and that there sand was being transported illegally.” 5. The petitioner could not satisfy me with any acceptable material that the finding is in anyway wrong. Admittedly pass was for transporting ordinary sand from Kodumbu of Palakkadu District to Paravoor. The vehicle was seized at Ottupara by the S.I. of Police, Wadakkanchery. The District Collector has found that for coming to Kodumbu it was not necessary to go to Ottupara at all. The petitioner could not controvert the said finding by any material whatsoever. When he was confronted with the said fact during hearing, he was forced to admit the violation also. He has not stated that the said finding is wrong also. Therefore, I do not find anything wrong with the finding regarding the guilt of the petitioner. Therefore, that finding is conformed. However, it appears that the District has not got the vehicle valued by a competent officer as directed by a Division Bench decision of this Court in District Collector, Malappuram v. Abdul Kasim [2010 (1) KLT SN 31 (C.No.38)]. That being so, the District Collector could not have, on his own estimation, decided the value. He was w.p.c.14693/10 3 legally bound to get the vehicle valued by a person competent to do such valuation. Accordingly, that part of Ext.P5 order fixing the value of the vehicle as Rs.75,000/- for the purpose of directing the petitioner to pay the amount towards the River Management Fund is quashed, confirming the finding regarding guilt of the petitioner. The District Collector shall get the value of the vehicle assessed by a competent engineer of the PWD or the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector and pass fresh orders fixing the amount to be paid by the petitioner towards River Management Fund as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. However, I make it clear that the petitioner would be bound to pay that value so fixed even if it is higher than the amount fixed in Ext.P5. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge