IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1930 OP.No. 36342 of 2002(B) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.N.ARUNAN S/O. NARAYANAN, AGED 48 YEARS VADAKKEDATH HOUSE, MARIAPPALLY KARA, NATTAKOM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAVINDRA BABU SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHINGAVANOM POLICE STATION, CHINGAVANOM, KOTTAYAM. 4. ADDITIONAL SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHINGAVANOM POLICE STATION, CHINGAVANOM, KOTTAYAM GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: O.P.NO. 36342/2002. ----------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF PASSED ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2 APPLICATION DT. 17-10-2002. EXT.P3 NOTICE DT. 22-10-2002. EXT.P4 ORDER OF R2 DT. 18-11-2002. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= O.P. No. 36342 of 2002 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 14th November, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner's vehicle with sand was seized on allegations of unauthorised transportation of river sand violating the provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 and the Rules therein. The same culminated in Ext. P4 order of the District Collector under the Act, whereby the petitioner was directed to pay a fine amounting to Rs.15,000/- and an amount of Rs. 48,000/- fixed as value of the vehicle towards River Management Fund as provided in the Rules. The petitioner challenges Ext. P4 order. The ground on which Ext. P4 is challenged is that the finding that the sand was not accompanied by P Form under the Act and Rules is not correct. The contention of the petitioner is that the same was accompanied by Ext. P1 P Form. He also alleges violation of the Rules and principles of natural justice on the ground that copy of the seizure mahazar was not issued to him. He therefore submits that Ext. P4 order based on the assumption that the sand was not accompanied by P Form is not correct. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 3. The seizure was on 15-10-2002. The police who seized the vehicle filed a report before the Collector to the effect that the driver of the lorry did not possess any P Form at all. Further, he has stated that at the time of seizure, there was no case that the sand is ordinary sand and not river sand. The District Collector also found that there were serious discrepancies between the application submitted by the petitioner and his deposition before the District Collector. As such, there was evidence before the District Collector to hold that the sand was river sand. Further, the petitioner did not make any effort to examine the person who issued Ext. P1 pass and to O.P No. 36342/2002. -: 2 :- prove that the transport was in accordance with the said pass in P Form and that the consignment was ordinary sand. As such, the petitioner has not made any effort whatsoever to prove his case that the sand was not river sand and was ordinary sand accompanied by Ext. P1 Form. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept the contention of the petitioner to the effect that the sand was ordinary sand accompanied by Ext. P1 P Form. 4. The petitioner has got another contention that copy of the mahazar was not supplied to him and in respect of the same, the District Collector has not entered any finding. According to the petitioner, on seizure of the vehicle, copy of the mahazar is to be mandatorily issued to the person possessing the vehicle at the time of seizure as per Rule 27(2) of the Kerala Protection of River Banks & Regulation of Removal of Sand Rules. From the impugned order, I find that the petitioner had raised a contention of non-supply of copy of seizure mahazar, which is a requirement under Rule 27(2). Therefore, technically, the petitioner has a case. In the above circumstances, I am of opinion that the District Collector has to re- consider the matter after giving a copy of the seizure mahazer to the petitioner. Accordingly, Ext.P4 is quashed and the District Collector is directed to re-consider the matter, after giving the petitioner a copy of the seizure mahazar. Fresh orders shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If any amount has been realised from the O.P No. 36342/2002. -: 3 :- petitioner as per Ext. P4, refund of the same, if warranted, shall be only as per fresh orders to be passed as directed above. The original petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/