IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2010 / 15TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 14570 of 2010(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. SHAJI,AGED 42 YEARS,S/O.SUBRAMANIAN, VEERAMTHAZHATHU HOUSE,KATTIKUNNU,CHEMBU P.O., CHEMPU VILLAGE,VAIKOM TALUK,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN.686615. 2. BABU,AGED 45 YEARS,S/O.SUKUMARAN, MADATHILCHIRAYIL HOUSE,POOTHOTTA P.O.,S.PARUR, MANAKUNNAM VILLAGE,KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,PIN.682307. 3. RAGHAVAN,AGED 64 YEARS,S/O.KONNAN, SURAJ BHAVAN,S.PARUR P.O.,MANAKUNNAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.PIN-682320. BY ADV. SRI.BABU CHERUKARA SRI.P.V.PRAKASAN SRI.S.RUSSEL SRI.V.R.ARUN SRI.R.THULASEEDHARAN PILLAI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM PIN-682030. 2. THE S.I.OF POLICE, HILL PALACE POLICE STATION,TRIPUNITHURA,TRIPUNITHURA P.O.682301, 3. THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST, ERNAKULAM, DISTRICT COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM PIN.682030. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY G.P.SRI.V.MANU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------ W.P(C) No.14570 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 6th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioners are the owners of vehicles which have been seized on allegations of illegal transportation of river sand in violation of the provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act. Final orders passed by the District Collector are Exts.P10 to P12, by which, after finding that the vehicles have been used for illegal transportation of river sand, the petitioners have been directed to pay the value of the vehicles towards river management fund. The same are under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioners raise two contentions. The first is that Rules 27 and 28 of the Rules are unconstitutional. The second is that the District Collector has not complied with the procedure prescribed under the Act and Rules for seizure and confiscation of the vehicles. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. As far as the constitutional validity of the Act and Rules is concerned, the same is covered by a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court reported in Subramanian v. State of Kerala [2009(1) KLT 77]. The powers of the Collector are also approved by several Division Bench decisions of this Court. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the petitioners that the provisions of the Act W.P(C) No.14570 OF 2010 2 and Rules are unconstitutional. The second contention was never raised before the District Collector at all. The contentions of the petitioners before the Collector have been specifically enumerated in the impugned orders. A contention to the effect that the procedure followed by the District Collector is not in accordance with rules does not find a place there. The petitioners could not satisfy me that such a contention was ever taken before the District Collector. Therefore, clearly that contention is an afterthought, which cannot be countenanced at this later stage, especially since the District Collector had no occasion to deal with such a contention. Therefore, there is no merit in both the contentions of the petitioners. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE cms