IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 23RD DECEMBER 2010 / 2ND POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 23049 of 2010(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- VINOD KUMAR, PAYICKAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, KARUVATTA NORTH P.O., KARTHIKAPALY THALUK ALAPPUZHA (DIST) BY ADV. SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA - 688001. 2. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, COLLECTORATE ALAPPUZHA - 688001. 3. TAHSILDAR, KARTHIKAPALLY HARIPAD P.O. PIN - 690514. GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.23049/2010-E ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T The challenge is against Ext.P7 order passed by the Additional District Magistrate who was in charge of the District Collector under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised three contentions. Firstly it is pointed out that the District Collector has not passed any order but the Additional District Magistrate who was in charge has signed the order. Secondly it is pointed out that the petitioner was not heard before passing the order. It is also submitted that the mahazar was not prepared in tune with Rule 27(2) of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Rules, 2002 and no copy of such mahazar has been served to the petitioner. Therefore, the entire seizure and consequent confiscation are invalid. W.P.(C). No.23049/2010 -:2:- 3. The petitioner's case is that after the vehicle was seized on 24/12/2009, the petitioner moved an application for getting the vehicle released as per Ext.P4 on 18/01/2010. The first respondent passed an order to return the vehicle to the petitioner on condition of payment of fine of Rs.25,000/-. Accordingly, the amount was paid and the vehicle was released. According to him, he was on the bona fide belief that the said order was final. But, he was served with Ext.P7 order whereby he was directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,60,000/-. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent it is pointed out that the mahazar has been prepared by the Sub Inspector of Police as per Ext.R2 (a) and, the petitioner's allegation that he was not given the copy of the mahazar is not denied. Apart from that there is no denial of the contention that the petitioner was not heard before passing the order. The confiscation of the vehicle will result in serious consequences to the parties concerned. Such an order can be passed only after affording an opportunity of W.P.(C). No.23049/2010 -:3:- hearing and in compliance with the principles of natural justice. Petitioner has to produce materials in support of his pleadings to prove that the entire seizure and consequent confiscation of the vehicle cannot be supported as per law. 5. In that view of the matter, Ext.P7 order is quashed. Therefore, the competent authority in terms of the provisions of the Act will take a decision after hearing the petitioner and affording all opportunity to adduce any additional evidences also. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. Sd/- (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms \\TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE