IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2010 / 21ST SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 25360 of 2010(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- AJITHA BHARATHAN, AGED 36, W/O.BHARATHAN, NEDUVELI HOUSE, THURAVOOR P.O., THURAVOOR VILALGE, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.SHAIJAN JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. BIBINS, S/O. VYDHYAN, KUNNUMPURATHU HOUSE, PUNNAMATTOM KARA,ENAMALLOOR VILLAGE MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. 3. SUBISH SUBRAN, KAPAYAMGAT HOUSE, PERUMPADAPPU P.O., PIN-679580 4. SHAJI,S/O.KUMARAN, PANCHASERY HOUSE, PORKKULANGAD P.O. ARTHATTIL VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.25360 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 12th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext.P4 order passed by the District Collector, Malappuram, dated 14.7.2010, whereby, on a finding that the petitioner has used the vehicle seized, for illegal transportation of river sand in violation of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, the 3rd respondent was directed to pay Rs.4,50,000/- as value of the vehicle towards river management fund. The issue is a little complicated one insofar as there are four persons including the petitioner claiming to be entitled to be in possession of the vehicle. I am not inclined to go into that question in this writ petition. I am inclined only to consider the validity of the order directing payment of amounts to the River Management Fund for illegal transportation of sand. 2. Admittedly, the order is dated 14.7.2010. On that day, the District Collector was not the original authority to pass orders in the matter, since the Act had been amended with effect from 14.6.2010, designating the Sub Divisional Magistrate as the original authority to pass orders in the first instance and the District Collector as the revisional authority. As such, Ext.P4 cannot be held to be validly passed under the Act. Accordingly, Ext.P4 is quashed. The Sub w.p.c.25360/10 2 Divisional Magistrate having jurisdiction as per the amended Act shall consider the matter and pass orders after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as respondents 2, 3 and 4. The Sub Divisional Magistrate would be free to decide the question as to, as among the petitioner and respondents 2 to 4, who is entitled to custody of the vehicle on payment of the amounts towards river management fund, if the Sub Divisional Magistrate finds that the vehicle has been used for illegal transportation of river sand on the basis of the evidence to be adduced by the parties. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge