IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 14TH AUGUST 2009 / 23RD SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 20089 of 2009(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ABDUL GAFOOR,AGED 35 YRS,S/O.ALI, NATTAKKAL VEEDU,PERUMANNA.P.O,KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.R.SUDHISH SMT.M.MANJU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE DIST. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.20089 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of August, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-11/A-4119. It was seized on 13.1.2009 by the Sub Inspector of Police, Nallalam, alleging illicit transportation of river sand. The files were then forwarded to the District Collector, Kozhikode. 2. After hearing the petitioner as well, Ext.P1 order was passed by the respondent District Collector holding that there was illicit transportation of river sand and directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards the value of the vehicle and Rs.25,000/- as fine. This has been challenged in this writ petition. 3. Learned Government Pleader has produced the files leading to Ext.P1 order and I have perused the same. W.P.(C).No.20089 of 2009 :: 2 :: 4. There is dispute as to whether the consignment was with the aid of a pass. But there is no dispute that the vehicle had, deviated from the route which it should have legitimately taken, if it were to transport sand from the Kadavu in Vazhakkad Grama Panchayat to Pallipuram. Both the places are situated within Malappuram District. But the vehicle was seized from within Kozhikode District. The explanation offered by the petitioner is that the driver of the vehicle was proceeding to deliver the sand at the place of destination. When he received information that his wife was taken to the hospital, he brought back the vehicle to the petitioner's residence to hand over the key to the owner, and then proceeded home thereafter. According to the petitioner, the vehicle was seized at that point of time. This is the defence taken by the petitioner in the representation filed on 20.1.2009 and subsequently on 4.3.2009. It is seen from W.P.(C).No.20089 of 2009 :: 3 :: Ext.P1 order that these contentions are not even referred to in the representation. As has been held in Subramanian Vs. State of Kerala [2009 (1) KLT 77), the collector exercises quasi judicial power under Section 23 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks (Protection and Regulation of Removal of Sand) Act, 2002. If a specific defence is taken, then he is expected to deal with the same. He is required to advert it, even if he is not inclined to accept the same. That has not been done in this case. 5. I am satisfied that the matter requires re-consideration at the hands of the District Collector. 6. Accordingly, Ext.P1 is set aside. The District Collector is directed to pass fresh orders in the matter of seizure/confiscation/release of the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-11/A-4119 seized by the Sub Inspector of Police, Nallalam on 13.1.2009, within three months from the date of W.P.(C).No.20089 of 2009 :: 4 :: receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is open to the petitioner to prove that the river sand was being transported on 13.1.2009 as per a pass issued in that regard by a competent authority, but, the driver was constrained to take a deviation due to personal reasons. An affidavit by the driver of the vehicle and copies of the medical records, if any, shall also be placed before the District Collector, if the petitioner is desirous of substantiating his defence. 7. Writ petition is disposed of as above. A copy of this judgment, along with a copy of the writ petition shall be produced by the petitioner before the respondent for compliance. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge