IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2010 / 25TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 22213 of 2010(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- DEEPU VARGHESE, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.VARGHESE,PERINGATTIL HOUSE, NADUVILA VILLAGE PADINJAREKARA MURI, VAIKOM TALUK,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.ALIAS M.CHERIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR THRIISUR. 2. SHERIFF AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O.MOOSA, CHEMPANVEETIL, IDYAPARAPURATHU,PULICKAL VILLAGE, ERANADU TALUK,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. M/S.SHIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LTD. 36/847, CHITTOOR ROAD, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 22213 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 16th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext.P4 order passed by the District Collector, Thrissur, under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, by which, on a finding that a lorry bearing registration No.KL-5-P 8015 was used for illegal transport of river sand, the legal owner of the vehicle was directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,25,000/- as the value of the vehicle towards river management fund. Ext.P4 order was passed as early as on 3.11.2009. That order was passed after hearing the person in possession of the vehicle. The petitioner claims to be the registered owner of the vehicle. According to him, as per Ext.P2 agreement for sale, he sold the vehicle to one Sheriff, the 2nd respondent herein. According to the petitioner, he was not aware of the use of the vehicle for illegal transportation of river sand. The petitioner does not challenge Ext.P4 order on merits. The only contention is that insofar as the direction therein is to the legal owner of the vehicle, as the registered owner, he may be saddled with the liability. He also submits that the vehicle is hypotheticated to a financier, the 3rd respondent herein, and the financier would proceed against the petitioner for the balance amount due and the petitioner sold the vehicle subject to that liability. Therefore, if the petitioner is w.p.c.22213/10 2 now saddled that liability under Ext.P4 order, he would be put to irreparable loss and injury for no fault of his. Therefore, he wants this Court to set aside Ext.P4 order and direct the District Collector to pass fresh orders after affording him an opportunity of being heard. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. I can set aside Ext.P4 only if it is legally wrong. Admittedly, the petitioner does not challenge Ext.P4 order on merits. The challenge is only on the ground that he should also be heard. The Act and Rules stipulate for a hearing of only the person in possession of the vehicle. Admittedly, the person in possession of the vehicle has been heard. In fact, the petitioner himself admits that he had sold the vehicle long before the vehicle was used for illegal transportation of river sand. That being so, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to be heard in the matter. In the above circumstances, I do not think that the petitioner can challenge Ext.P4 order on the ground that he was not heard before passing that order especially when he himself admits that he is not challenging Ext.P4 on merits. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.22213/10 3