IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 29TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 6116 of 2008(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.M. ABBAS, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. MOHAMMED KUNJU RAWTHER, KANDAMKULATHI HOUSE, VAIPUR P.O., MALLAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. DEPUTY COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. TAHSILDAR, MALLAPPALLY. 4. KOTTANGAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOTTANGAL. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ======================= W.P.(C) No. 6116 of 2008 (C) ======================= Dated this the 29th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P6. Ext.P6 is a communication issued by the 2nd respondent intimating the petitioner that the 1st respondent had found that the vehicle of the petitioner was engaged in the unauthorised transportation of river sand and that it was ordered that the petitioner shall remit Rs.4.50,000/- each towards the value and fine. It is challenging Ext.P6 that this writ petition has been filed. 2. On a consideration of Ext.P6, I am not in a position to sustain the action taken by the 1st respondent. The power exercised by the 1st respondent is under Rule 27 of the Kerala Protection of River Sand and Regulation on Removal of River Sand Rule 2002. In such an enquiry, the District Collector, who is the 1st respondent, is to pass orders and communicate the same to the affected party. In this case, though 1st respondent has apparently passed an order dated 29.10.2008, that is not W.P.(C) No. 6116/2008/C -2- communicated to the petitioner. On the other hand, Ext.P6 is issued by the 2nd respondent. Therefore, there is no proper compliance of Rule 27. 3. That apart, I also notice that in Ext.P3 letter issued by the 1st respondent, it is stated by him that he had received a statement from the petitioner to the effect that the vehicle was not used for transportation of river sand. This has not been considered by the District Collector while final orders are passed. At any rate there is no mention of it in Ext.P6. For that reason also, Ext.P6 order and the order of the District Collect cannot be sustained. 4. I also notice that towards value and fine for Rs.4.50,000/- each has been levied. This is highly disproportionate. 5. For all these reasons, I am satisfied that the matter needs to be re-examined and for that purpose, I quash Ext.P6. The 1st respondent shall reconsider the matter with notice to the petitioner and decide afresh. This shall be done as expeditiously at any rate within 15 days of the production of a copy of this W.P.(C) No. 6116/2008/C -3- judgment. He should also bear in mind that comparative quantum of fine shall be imposed in similar cases dealt with by him. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE jp