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. 21635 of 2010(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- UMMER K., AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.KUNJAHAMMED, KATTIKULANGARA HOUSE, CHATTIPPARAMBA PO, KOLATHUR VIA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, (RC OWNER KL-10/AE-762) BY ADV. SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, MALAPPURAM 2.TAHSILDAR, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DT. 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.21635 OF 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext.P2 order passed by the District Collector, Malappuram under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act. By that order, the District Collector found the petitioner guilty of transporting river sand illegally using the vehicle in question and directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.5,30,000/- as value of the vehicle towards River Management Fund. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was not transporting river sand but only ordinary sand. He submits that there is no finding in the order that the District Collector has taken appropriate steps to ascertain whether the sand is river sand, instead he has passed a mechanical order, is the contention raised. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. The learned Government Pleader points out that at the time of hearing, the petitioner himself admitted the illegality of the W.P.(c)No.21635/10 2 transport, which has been recorded in Ext.P2 order itself. He further submits that even for transporting ordinary sand, a cash memorandum under Rule 48K of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules is mandatory. The petitioner has no case that the sand was accompanied by a cash memorandum also. 3. In answer to the finding in Ext.P2 that the petitioner admitted the illegal transport, the petitioner would explain that after the hearing, the District Collector directed the petitioner to put his signature on the paper shown by the Collector and without reading the contents of the paper, the petitioner put his signature thereon. According to the petitioner, he had no intention of admitting any guilt. But he has no explanation for the contention that the petitioner did not also have the pass to transport ordinary sand which is also a statutory requirement. The petitioner contends that he was transporting the sand from the property of his brother. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. The petitioner does not have any allegations of malafides against the District Collector. He admits having signed the statement prepared by the District Collector, as per which the petitioner has admitted his guilt. As such, the petitioner's W.P.(c)No.21635/10 3 explanation now that he signed the same without reading the contents of the paper does not appeal to me. Even otherwise, the petitioner has no case that the petitioner had a pass for transporting ordinary sand also. In Ext.P2, the District Collector has entered a specific finding that the sand in question was river sand. The petitioner has not been able to produce any evidence whatsoever to disprove the finding in Ext.P2. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in the challenge against Ext.P2 order. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(c)No.21635/10 4 W.P.(c)No.21635/10 5