IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2010 / 22ND ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 21721 of 2010(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHAHUL HAMEED, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.MOIDEEN KUTTY, PARAMBIL HOUSE, THIRUNAVAYA, THIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VALANCHERY POLICE STATION, VALANCHERY, THIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. SECRETARY, THIRUNAVAYA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, THIRUNAVAYA, THIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 301. BY G.P.SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.21721 OF 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext.P5 order passed by the District Collector, Malappuram under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act. By that order, after finding that the petitioner was guilty of transporting river sand in violation of the provisions of the Act and Rules, the petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- as value of the vehicle towards River Management Fund. The petitioner's contention is that the sand was supported by Ext.P3 pass and therefore, there was no occasion for the District Collector to find that the petitioner was transporting river sand illegally. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also, who points out that as per the seizure mahazar, the vehicle was seized at 12.30 p.m. and in the pass produced by the petitioner, the time of start of the vehicle with sand given is 2 p.m. Therefore according to the learned Government Pleader Ext.P1 is W.P.(c)No.21721/10 2 not one obtained in relation to the seized consignment. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. Admittedly, in the seizure mahazar, the time of seizure is shown as 12.30 p.m. on 23.2.2010. In Ext.P3, the starting time of the vehicle is shown as 2 'O' clock. That being so, if the sand in question could not have been transported on the strength of Ext.P3 pass. The petitioner has not chosen to challenge Ext.P1 seizure mahazar also. That being so, the statement in Ext.P1 seizure mahazar that the seizure was at 12.30 p.m. remains unchallenged. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot challenge Ext.P5 order on the strength of Ext.P3 pass. In Ext.P5, the District Collector has found that the sand was river sand and the petitioner did not have any evidence to show the legality of the transport. The petitioner has also not approached this Court with clean hands in so far as he tried to pass off a pass issued for transport of sand at 2 'O' clock as one relating to the consignment seized at 12.30 p.m. In view of above findings, I do not find any merit in the challenge against Ext.P5 order. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(c)No.21721/10 3 W.P.(c)No.21721/10 4