IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2008 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1929 W.P(C).No. 5354 of 2008(K) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- SHARAFUDHEEN, S/O.MUHAMMED, KATTIKKATTIL HOUSE, MANGALAM P.O., TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 108. BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM - 676 001. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, TIRUR PIN - 676 101. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUTTIPPURAM, PIN - 676 276. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. I.V. PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/02/2008, ALONG WITH W.P.(C) No. 5381/08, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NOS. 5354 & 5381 OF 2008 ========================= Dated this the 22ndday of February, 2008 J U D G M E N T In these two cases, proceedings were initiated against the petitioners under the Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Rules, 2002, which culminated in Exts. P6 and P8 orders passed by the District Collector exercising his power under Rule 27 of the Rules. By these orders, it has been found that the vehicles involved were engaged in the unauthorised transportation of river and and on that basis, value and fine is ordered to be remitted. 2. In so far as WP(C) 5354/08 is concerned, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the river sand was being transported on the strength of a valid pass and that a copy of the said pass was produced before the District Collector. Although a list of witnesses to prove the genuineness of the pass was also filed by the petitioner, the District Collector declined to accept the pass in evidence for the only reason that it was a photocopy. WPC 5354 & 5381/08 :2 : 3. I considered the submissions of the learned counsel. The factual correctness of the statement made by the learned counsel can be seen from para 1 of the order itself. It may be true that a document produced by the petitioner was a photocopy, but that itself is no reason to decline to accept the same. An adjudication before the District Collector, is not regulated by the provisions of Evidence Act. In this case, the fact that the petitioner was willing to prove the genuineness of the photocopy by adducing oral evidence makes the pass produced all the more credit worthy. In any case, without affording opportunity to the petitioner to prove the genuineness of the pass, the District Collector should not have rejected the pass for the only reason that it was a photocopy. 4. In so far as W.P.(C)No.5381/08 is concerned, petitioner contends that Ext.P8 order was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing. On going through Ext.P8, I do not find that such an opportunity was granted to the petitioner. For that reason, I have to hold that this order is vitiated for violation of the principles of natural justice. WPC 5354 & 5381/08 :3 : 5. For the aforesaid reasons, I am satisfied that Ext.P6 in WP(C)5354/08 and Ext.P8 in WP(C) No.5381/08 needs to be interfered with and these orders are accordingly quashed. The 1st respondent in these cases is directed to reconsider the matter affording an opportunity of hearing to the respective petitioners. Orders shall be passed as expeditiously as possible at any rate within three weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petitions are disposed of. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE Rp