IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2011 / 11TH JYAISHTA 1933 WA.No. 645 of 2008() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.2092/2003 Dated 19/10/2006 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ----------------------------------------- P.C.ISMAIL, PAYYAMBALLIL HOUSE, KANGAZHA, CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ----------------------------------------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, CHANGANACHERRY. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVASIS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.CHELAMESWAR, C.J. & ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============================== W.A. NO. 645 OF 2008 =================== Dated this the 1st day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T Antony Dominic, J. The appellant filed the writ petition challenging Ext.P2 order passed by the District Collector exercising his powers under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Removal of Sand Act confiscating the vehicle bearing Regn.No.KL-7/V 619 and directing the same to be released to the appellant on remittance of the value as assessed by the Regional Transport Officer. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground of availability of alternate remedy. 2. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition as at the time when the impugned order was passed, statute did not provide for any alternate remedy. It is a fact that until the statute was amended with effect from 14/6/2010, orders such as Ext.P2 passed by the District Collector in WA No.645/2008 : 2 : exercise of the powers under the provisions of the Act were final and the affected parties did not have any remedy other than to approach this court by way of writ petition. 3. Even though we accept the said contention, still fact remains that this is a case where the lorry in question was admittedly seized while transporting river sand. Nowhere in the pleadings or during the course of the submissions made before us, did the counsel for the appellant make a statement that the transportation of the sand was on the strength of any permit obtained by the appellant. On the other hand, the only contention was that the time at which Ext.P1 mahazar was prepared as recorded therein was incorrect. Even if the said submission has any force, appellant has no case that the transportation was legal. In our view such procedural irregularities will not invalidate Ext.P2 order. Therefore on merits, we are not satisfied that the appellant has made out a case for interference. 4. In that view of the matter and for the aforesaid WA No.645/2008 : 3 : reasons, we confirm the dismissal of the writ petition. Writ appeal is dismissed. J.CHELAMESWAR CHIEF JUSTICE. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE. Rp