IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2011 / 24TH ASHADHA 1933 Con.Case(C).No. 609 of 2011(S) ------------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.18780/2010 Dated 08/12/2010 .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ----------------------------- NOUSHAD K., S/O.KHADAR, AGED 27 YEARS, KADAPRATHKATH HOUSE, EASWARAMANGALAM P.O., PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. (OWNER OF KL-46/4704). BY ADV. SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS RESPONDENT/1ST RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------- P.M.FANCIS, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, (FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, MALAPPURAM – 676 505. BY SRI. V. VIJULAL, GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CC(C).No.609/2011 A P P E N D I X PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE-A: COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 18780/10 DTD. 8.12.10 OF THIS COURT. ANNEXURE-B: COPY OF PROOF AFFIDAVIT OF 1ST WITNESS DTD. 19.4.11. ANNEXURE-C: COPY OF PROOF AFFIDAVIT OF 2ND WITNESS DTD.19.4.11. ANNEXURE-D: COPY OF ORDER No.D.M-6/67018/2010 DTD. 4.5.11 PASSED BY RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE-E: COPY OF NOTICE DTD. 10.3.11 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE-F: COPY OF PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE LYING THE VEHICLE. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. // True Copy // P.A. to Judge. smp T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------------------ Contempt Case (C) No.609 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of July, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner had earlier approached this court by filing W.P.(C) No.18780/2010 wherein this Court by Annexure-A judgment directed the District Collector to pass appropriate orders. Alleging non compliance of the directions of this Court, this Contempt Case is filed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 3. In Annexure-A judgment, this Court considered the matter in the light of the allegation raised by the petitioner that there was no detailed consideration of his grievances. The proceedings were one initiated under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. This Court directed the District Collector to consider the matter in the light of various decisions of this Court. 4. Annexure-D is the order passed by the District Collector. Contempt Case (C) No.609/2011 2 A reading of the same shows that the District Collector was of the view that there is violation of the provisions of the Act and accordingly the petitioner is directed to remit Rs.2,00,000/- to the River Management Fund. Various contentions have been raised in the Contempt Case to show that the order is passed without any application of mind. 5. An affidavit has been filed by the District Collector. In paragraph 3 therein it is explained that the petitioner was heard on 23.02.2011. Again the case was posted to 09.03.2011 for hearing the Sub Inspector of Police, Kuttippuram who seized the vehicle. On 09.03.2011, the petitioner appeared and stated that he has to produce witnesses. So the case was again adjourned to 16.03.2011 and on that date the learned counsel for the petitioner sought adjournment to 19.04.2011. It is pointed out that the petitioner did not produce any eye witnesses and finally the learned counsel for the petitioner was heard on 19.04.2011. 6. It is averred in the affidavit that on verification of the seizure mahazar and upon hearing the vehicle owner, witnesses and Sub Inspector of Police, Kuttippuram, it is found that the Contempt Case (C) No.609/2011 3 petitioner has failed to prove that the vehicle was not indulged in illicit transportation of river sand. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that actually the petitioner was not permitted to produce independent witnesses. This is a matter which the petitioner can raise while challenging the order itself in a properly filed writ petition. I am not satisfied that any action is warranted under the Contempt of Court Act. Therefore, leaving open the remedy of the petitioner to challenge the order in appropriate proceedings, this Contempt Case is disposed of. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp