IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2010 / 10TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20496 of 2010(J) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- MOHAMMED ANAS, S/O.YOOSAF, AGED 27, YEARS, KUZHIKANDATHIL HOUSE, AYAMKALAM P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTICT. BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM THOMAS (PUTHURAN). RESPONDENT: ---------------------- THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, MALAPPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P. NARAYANAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.20496 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1st day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext.P5 order passed by the District Collector, Malappuram. That order was passed by the District Collector under the provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 & Rules. In Ext.P5 the District Collector found that the petitioner has transported river sand illegally in violation of the Act and Rules by using the vehicle involved. Therefore the District Collector directed the petitioner to pay Rs.5 lakhs which was the value fixed by the Ponnani Joint Regional Transport Officer for the vehicle, to the River Management Fund. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the finding that the vehicle is used for illegal transportation of river sand is unsustainable. He further W.P.(C)No.20496 of 2010 -2- submits that, the valuation of the vehicle is exorbitant and does not represent the actual value of the vehicle. 3. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. He argues in support of the Ext.P5 order, on the basis of the findings of the Ext.P5 order. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. On a reading of Ext.P5, I find that, the vehicle in question was seized with sand therein. On 22.01.2010, when the Ponnani Motor Vehicle Inspector stopped the vehicle for inspection, those in the vehicle ran away abandoning the vehicle. Therefore the Joint R.T.O., Ponnani, informed this matter to the Tahsildar, Ponnani, and pursuant thereto, the Special Squad formed for preventing unauthorized transport of river sand took custody of the vehicle and entrusted with the police station after preparing a seizure mahazar. It is also stated in Ext.P5 that at the time of hearing, the petitioner admitted that at the time of transportation of the sand the petitioner did not have the required pass for such transportation and therefore the W.P.(C)No.20496 of 2010 -3- vehicle may be released after realising a small fine. Petitioner could not satisfy me that the findings in Ext.P5 order are in anyway perverse or unsustainable. As such there is no reason to interfere with the findings of the District Collector that the petitioner had used the vehicle for unauthorized transportation of river sand. From Ext.P5 order it is evident that the vehicle was valued by the Joint Regional Transport Officer, Ponnani, who is a competent officer to value the vehicle. Petitioner has not been able to satisfy me that, that valuation is in anyway exorbitant or unreasonable by producing any material in support of that contention. In the above circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in Ext.P5 order. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE shg/