IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2011 / 31ST BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 25001 of 2011(A) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- BIJU.P.B., SON OF BHASKARAN, AGED 37 YEARS, PUNNAKKAL HOUSE, ANGANAKUZHY, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. DISTRICST COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA-689645 2. SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE/REVENUE DEIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRIUVALLA-695027 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KEEZHVAAYPOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA-689587 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 25001 of 2011(A) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE GOODS CARRIAGE PERMIT OF THE VEHICLE OWNED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P1(A): TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF THE PETITIONERS VEHICLE. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NUMBER 374/2010 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT POLICE STATION. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PASS AND CASH MEMORANDUM IN RESPECT OF THE LOAD SEIZED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER VIDE REFERENCE NUMBER B1-3758/2010. EXHIBIT P5: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE WRITTEN EXPLANTION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27/11/2010. EXHIBIT P7: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE1ST RESPONDENT DATED 31/3/2011 VIDE REFERENCE NUMBER C9-50663/2010. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No. 25001 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of September , 2011. JUDGMENT Challenge in the writ petition is against Exhibits P6 and P7 orders. Exhibit P6 is an order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate exercising his powers under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001and this order was confirmed by the District Collector, in Exhibit P7 proceedings. According to the petitioner P6 order has been issued on the basis that the petitioner admitted guilt when he appeared before the Sub Divisional Magistrate in pursuance to the notice issued by him. It is his case that the said statement is incorrect and that therefore the matter needs to be reconsider. In a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot adjudicate on disputed questions of fact. Exhibit P6 order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate repeatedly states that the petitioner had confessed his guilt. In view of the W.P(C) No. 25001 of 2011 2 said statement and as nothing has been produced to prove the same to be incorrect, I cannot accept the contention of the petitioner. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE rkc //True copy// PA to Judge