IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2009 / 9TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 708 of 2009(H) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAHMATHULLA, S/O. ABDUL SALA, ALINGAL HOUSE, KOOTIL P.O., MANKADA VILA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, ERNAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, MALAPPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ----------------------- W.P.(C).No.708 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT Challenge is against Ext.P3, an order passed by the 2nd respondent exercising his powers under the Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act. In Ext.P3, a lorry bearing registration No.KL-11R/2804, of which the petitioner is the registered owner, is found to have been engaged in the unauthorized transportation of river sand and on that basis the petitioner has been directed to remit an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the River Management Fund. 2. A reading of Ext.P3 shows that though notice was issued to the petitioner requiring him to appear for a personal hearing, the petitioner did not appear for the same. However, the learned counsel has submitted that on receipt of Ext.P1 notice of hearing scheduling the same on 2.8.2008, he sought adjournment by Ext.P2 letter. 3. However, the Government Pleader on instruction WP(c).No.708/09 2 submits that the same has not been received. Although the 2nd respondent cannot be faulted for having passed Ext.P3, for the reason that the petitioner was admittedly absent on the date of hearing, still in view of the averment in the writ petition that he has filed Ext.P2 request for an adjournment and as obviously Ext.P3 was passed without hearing the petitioner, I am inclined to direct that the petitioner be given an opportunity to put forward his contentions. This is all the more for the reason that by Ext.P3, the petitioner has been saddled with a financial liability of Rs.1,50,000/- to save his mini lorry. 4. For these reasons I set aside Ext.P3 and direct the District Collector, the 2nd respondent to issue fresh notice to the petitioner and pass fresh orders, after giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and contest the matter. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before the 2nd respondent for compliance. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/