IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2009 / 26TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 20052 of 2009(B) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- BASHEER A.P. S/O. MOIDEEN, ARANGTHUPARAMBIL, ALATHIYOOR P.O. THIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.K.MUHAMMED SALAHUDHEEN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY THAHSILDAR, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = W.P.(C). No. 20052 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = Dated this the 17th day of August 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner is the registered owner of the Mini Lorry bearing registration No. KL-9Q-3996. Ext.P1 pass issued by the Secretary, Thriprangode Grama panchayath on 27.04.2009 to enable the petitioner to transport one lorry load of sand. The pass enabled the transportation of sand on 27.04.2009 at 2.55p.m. 2. According to the petitioner, after loading, the vehicle left the Kadavu at 2.55 p.m. But the driver stopped the vehicle at Beeranchira to take food. Vehicle was inspected by the second respondent, who was convinced that the transportation was with the aid of a valid pass. An endorsement “cancelled” was made on the pass and the vehicle was permitted to leave. But it seems that the vehicle which was coming next was also inspected and it was found that the number of the vehicle shown in the said pass was different. The vehicle was seized since though the passes were issued in seriation, it seems that the number of the vehicle given in the said pass was the same as that of the petitioner's vehicle. The petitioner's vehicle was also W.P.(C). No. 20052 OF 2009 2 inspected, seized and the files were forwarded to the District Collector. Petitioner filed a written explanation pointing out the above facts. The explanation was not accepted and Ext.P4 order was passed, requiring the petitioner to remit an amount of Rs. 1,60,000/- towards the River Management Fund. This has been challenged in the writ petition. 3. The learned Government Pleader has produced the files leading to Ext.P4 order and I have perused the same. 4. I heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Government pleader. 5. The finding in Ext.P4 that the vehicle was seized at 4.20 p.m. that therefore, it could have been used for transporting sand on the same pass for more than one occasion, cannot be discarded as completely baseless. But I take note of the petitioner's contention that the pass originally issued by the Panchayath was inspected and cancelled by the Sub Inspector. If it were actually so, then the transportation effected by the petitioner cannot be considered as illicit. But the petitioner's explanation has not been considered by the District Collector. W.P.(C). No. 20052 OF 2009 3 6. In these circumstances, Ext.P4 is set aside and the District Collector is directed to pass fresh orders in the matter of seizure/release/confiscation of the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-9Q-3996, after notice to the petitioner within 4 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 7. In the meanwhile, the above mentioned vehicle shall be released on interim custody subject to the following conditions. (1) Petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs.25,000/- with the District Collector. (2) Petitioner shall file an undertaking not to alienate or encumber the vehicle until fresh orders are passed by the District Collector. (3) Petitioner shall not use the vehicle within the limits of Malappuram District until orders are passed by the District Collector. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (V.GIRI) JUDGE kkms/