IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 24TH MAY 2010 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 28046 of 2009(A) --------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- ANISH ISMAIL,AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.ISMAIL RAWUTHAR,KANDAMKULATHU HOUSE, VAIPURA,KOTANGAL VILLAGE,MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.VARUGHESE M EASO MR.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J. RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANIMALA POLICE STATION,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. MR. K. RAMESH - GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 28046 of 2009 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: COPY OF THE RC BOOK OF THE SWARAJ MAZDA MINI LORRY HAVING REGISTRATION NUMBER KL 03 M/2408. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 24.6.2009 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ORDER IN E 10-(2)-30332/09 BY R1.. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ORDER IN E 10-(2)-22055/09 DTD 11/5/09 BY R1. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ORDR IN E 10-(2) – 45554/09 DTD 26.9.2009 BY R1. EXT.P6: COPY OF APPLICATION DT 29.9.2009 BEFORE R1. EXT.P7: COPY OF RECEIPT DTD 29.9.2009 ISSUED BY R1. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.28046 OF 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of MAY, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext.P3 order passed by the first respondent District Collector under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act 2001 and the Rules made there under. By Ext.P3 order, the District Collector entered a finding that the vehicle seized was in fact carrying river sand without appropriate pass. The District Collector also entered a finding that the petitioner himself submitted before the District Collector that when sand, which was brought from Tamil Nadu in accordance with law, was being transferred to the petitioner’s lorry, the police has taken the same into custody and therefore imposing a small fine the vehicle may be released to the petitioner. The District Collector further entered a finding that as per the report of the Police and the mahazar prepared, it was conclusively proved that the sand transported in the vehicle was river sand not accompanied by proper documents, which calls for W.P.(c)No.28046/09 2 action under Rule 27(3) of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Rules. The District Collector had got the value of the vehicle assessed through the Joint Regional Transport Officer, who valued the vehicle at Rs.4,70,000/- which has been directed to be paid towards river management fund by the petitioner. The petitioner is challenging that order. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. Not even in this writ petition, the petitioner has produced any documents to substantiate his contention that the sand was being transported legally. The petitioner has no case that he has produced documents in support of his contention before the District Collector. That being so, I do not find any infirmity in the findings of the District Collector that the petitioner was illegally transporting the river sand in his vehicle. Therefore, clearly, the petitioner is liable for action under Rule 27(3) of the Rules. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would take a further contention that the fixation of the value of the vehicle as Rs.4,70,000/- is clearly excessive. He relies on Exts.P4 and P5 orders of the District Collector wherein a smaller amount W.P.(c)No.28046/09 3 has been directed to be paid for similar offence. Even assuming that in Exts.P4 and P5 the District Collector had directed payment of lesser amount than the actual value of the vehicle, that cannot be a precedent. This Court is also not bound by the orders of the District Collector. As far as Ext.P3 is concerned, I am only called upon to look into the question as to whether the findings therein are correct or not and not whether the findings therein are in consonance with some other orders in relation to some other vehicle. The petitioner has not produced any other material before this Court or before the District Collector to show that the valuation effected by the Joint Regional Transport Officer is in any way wrong. The petitioner has no case that the Joint Regional Transport Officer has inflated the value of the vehicle. The petitioner does not allege mala fides on the part of the Joint Regional Transport Officer also. In such circumstances, I cannot hold that the valuation made by the Joint Regional Transport Officer is in any way excessive. I am of opinion that in view of the ever increasing cases of unauthorized transportation of river sand, in order to curb them, it is necessary to take strict view about such matters. In so far as the petitioner has not been W.P.(c)No.28046/09 4 able to satisfy me that any part of Ext.P3 order is in any way against the Act and Rules, I am not inclined to entertain the challenge against Ext.P3 order. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(c)No.28046/09 5