IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2010 / 12TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23098 of 2010(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THOMAS V.T., S/O.THOMAS P.O., KOTTAKKERI VALACHIRA, MANAPPURAM P.O., CHERTHALAI, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BENOY K.KADAVAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AROOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.23098 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging Ext.P10 order of the District Collector passed under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, by which, on a finding that the petitioner has used his vehicle for transporting river sand, the petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- being the value of the vehicle, towards river management fund. The petitioner's contention is that Ext.P10 order has not been passed in accordance with Ext.P5 judgment of this Court in a writ petition earlier filed by the petitioner. According to him, by Ext.P5 judgment dated 23.11.2009, the District Collector was directed to take a decision as to the question whether the District Collector should proceed under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act or the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, or under both Acts. That decision was directed to be taken within one month, failing which, the vehicle has to be released unconditionally, is the contention. According to the petitioner, since Ext.P10 order has been passed only on 21.6.2010, it is in violation of Ext.P5 judgment and therefore, is liable to be quashed. 2. The learned Government Pleader would submit that the w.p.c.23098/10 2 direction in Ext.P5 judgment is not to pass final orders within one month, but only to initiate fresh proceedings within one month, which has been done by Ext.P6 notice dated 8.12.2009, which is well within the time limit prescribed in Ext.P5 judgment. He further submits that in Ext.P6 it has been specifically stated that the petitioner had unauthorizedly transported river sand and therefore, in accordance with Ext.P5 judgment, proceedings are proposed to be taken. The Government Pleader would argue that the said notice shows that the District Collector has decided to proceed under the the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act. Pursuant to that notice, the petitioner has been afforded an opportunity of being heard and therefore, Ext.P10 order passed is perfectly valid and proper, is his contention. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, the direction in Ext.P5 is not to pass final orders within one month, but to initiate fresh proceedings within one month, failing which, the vehicle was directed to be released unconditionally. This is further clear from the last but one sentence in Ext.P5 judgment, which says that if the District Collector decides to initiate fresh proceedings, the same shall be finalised within two months thereafter. But that does not mean that if the District Collector does not pass final orders within the w.p.c.23098/10 3 time stipulated, the entire proceedings would be vitiated. That only means that if the time limit is not followed, the vehicle has to be released unconditionally. However, I find that as per Ext.P5, the District Collector was to take a decision on the question whether the District Collector should proceed under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act or the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act or under both. Of course, as stated by the learned Government Pleader, Ext.P6 does contain reference of unauthorised transport of river sand. Still the petitioner has not been informed by the District Collector that he has decided to proceed under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act. But clearly Ext.P10 has been passed under the Act and therefore, the District Collector has decided to proceed under that Act only. But before affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, the petitioner had not been specifically informed that the District Collector has decided to proceed under that Act. Therefore, I am of opinion that the petitioner should be given another opportunity to put forward his contentions regarding the alleged violation under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act. For this purpose, Ext.P10 is quashed. In view of these proceedings, it is clear that now the petitioner knows the fact that the District Collector has decided to proceed under the the Kerala w.p.c.23098/10 4 Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act. Therefore, the District Collector is directed to pass fresh orders in the matter after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge