IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2010 / 27TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 26035 of 2010(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- VINEETH KUMAR C.J.,CHERUVALLIL HOUSE, MATHOOR P.O.,PATHANAMTHITTA BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUMARAKAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 26035 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 18th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner's vehicle has been seized on allegations to illegal transport of river sand. Earlier the petitioner approached this Court and obtained Ext.P4 judgment, which reads thus: “The petitioner challenges Ext.P6 order of the District Collector prescribing conditions for interim custody of the vehicle belonging to the petitioner, which was seized on allegations of illegal transport of river sand. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has necessary documents to prove the legality of the transport and, therefore, the seizure itself was illegal. He also submits that the same is not river sand. I am not inclined to go into those contentions here. If the petitioner is willing to take interim custody of the vehicle complying with the conditions in Ext.P6, which I find is perfectly in tune with the Division Bench decision of this Court in District Collector, Malappuram v. Abdul Kasim [2010 (1) KLT SN 31 (C.No.38)], he may do so. However, I direct the District Collector to pass final orders pursuant to the seizure as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and to adduce evidence in support of his case.” 2. Now Ext.P8 order has been passed, wherein the petitioner's vehicle has been ordered to be confiscated under the provisions of the the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.4,20,000/- being one and a half times the value of the vehicle as fine in lieu of confiscation of the vehicle. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P8 order in this writ petition. 3. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. He submits that the vehicle has been seized on allegations of illegal w.p.c.26035/10 2 transportation of river sand, but Ext.P8 order has been passed on a mistaken impression that the same is under the Kerala Conservation of paddy Land and Wet Land Act. I find that in respect of the same seizure, there were several proceedings earlier, as evidenced by Exts.P4, P6 and P7, all of which were under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act. That being so, Ext.P8 order passed under the Kerala Conservation Paddy Land and Wet Land Act appears to be not in order. If the Collector wanted to take proceedings under that Act, the petitioner should have been put on notice regarding the same before passing the order. Accordingly, Ext.P8 is quashed. The appropriate authority competent to pass orders pursuant to the seizure shall pass fresh orders in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.26035/10 3