IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 1ST NOVEMBER 2010 / 10TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 25248 of 2010(E) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- NAVAS BABU, S/O.MOHAMMEDKUTTY, NELLISSERY HOUSE, PUTHANATHANI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.AJITH KUMAR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM, PIN-676 505. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAPLAKANCHERRY, KAPLAKANCHERRY P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. DILEEP MOHAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.25248/2010-E: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE MAHZAR DTD. 19/02/2010. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE PASS ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, THIRUNAVAYA GRAMA PANCHAYAT. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R.1. DTD. 04/05/2010. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE UTSAVAM AT SREE VAIRANGODE BHAGHAVATHI TEMPLE. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 25248 of 2010 E ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 1st day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Ext.P3 order. Petitioner is the registered owner of a tipper lorry bearing registration No.KL- 11B-3838. At 17.05 hours, on 19-02-2010, the Sub Inspector of Police, Kalpakancherry seized the vehicle on the allegation that it was used for the unauthorised transportation of river sand. Accordingly, proceedings under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Mining Act, 2001 were initiated against the petitioner and finally, the District Collector passed Ext.P3 order, holding that the vehicle was used for unauthorised transportation of river sand and, therefore, liable for confiscation. Accordingly, petitioner was permitted to remit the value of the vehicle, viz., Rs.50,000/-. It is this order which is under challenge. 2. A reading of Ext.P3 shows that at the time of seizure, the driver was not in possession of the pass. On the W.P.(C) No.25248/10 : 2 : other hand, when, in response to the notice issued, the petitioner appeared before the District Collector, he produced Ext.P2 pass and on that basis, it was contended that the transportation was legal. In Ext.P3, it is pointed out by the District Collector that the transportation ought to have been completed before 4.50 PM on 19-02-2010. On the other hand, the vehicle was admittedly seized at 5.05 PM, which was beyond the time permitted by the pass itself. Therefore, admittedly, at the time of seizure, the vehicle was not authorised to transport the sand and if so, the conclusion of the District Collector contained in Ext.P3 is unassailable. 3. Counsel for the petitioner contended that it was on account of a procession in connection with the festival at the Sree Vairangode Bhagavathi temple that the vehicle got delayed in road and it was, therefore, the transportation could not be completed within the time allowed by the pass. However, a reading of Ext.P3 order shows that this contention was not raised before the District Collector. Therefore, I am W.P.(C) No.25248/10 : 3 : not inclined to consider the contention raised at this point of time before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in Subramanian Vs. District Collector, Malappuram[2009 (4) KLT 742] and contended that the District Collector should have considered that it was impossible to have transported another load of river sand, after 4.50 PM specified in the pass. In my view, it was not for the District Collector to have examined those contentions. It was for the petitioner to urge those contentions before the District Collector. It is seen that such contentions were not raised before the District Collector and, therefore, the District Collector cannot be faulted for not having considered such imaginary contentions. Writ petition fails and it is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks