IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2010 / 2ND ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 16258 of 2010(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ NOUSHAD, S/O. BASHEER, NALUKANDATHIL HOUSE, KUTTIKADAVU, CHERUPPA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, KOZHIKODE. ADV. MR. P.NARAYANAN - GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.16258 OF 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of JUNE, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext.P1 order of the District Collector, Kozhikode passed under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act. By that order, on a finding that the petitioner's vehicle has been used for unauthorised transport of river sand, the petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards River Management Fund. The petitioner submits that the transport was accompanied by a valid pass for such transportation and therefore, the finding that the transport was illegal, is unsustainable. Ext.P1 order is dated April 2009. The petitioner has filed this writ petition only on 26.5.2010. Even after receiving Ext.P2 notice dated 15.4.2010 for sale of the vehicle, the petitioner took more than a month to approach this Court. The petitioner's explanation for the long delay in challenging the same is that Ext.P1 order has been received only now. But along with the statement filed by W.P.(c)No.16258/10 2 the learned Government Pleader he has produced Ext.R1(a), which is a copy of Ext.P1 order, wherein the petitioner has acknowledged receipt of Ext.P1 order on 24.4.2009. The petitioner does not dispute the signature in Ext.R1(a) as his. That being so, the petitioner has not been able to satisfactorily explain the long delay of more than a year in challenging Ext.P1 order. Hence, the petitioner is guilty of unexplained delay and laches. The writ petition is dismissed on that ground. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(c)No.16258/10 3 W.P.(c)No.16258/10 4