IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2009 / 7TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 2670 of 2009(P) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------------- SUDHEESH A.P ,S/O. A.P.PARAMESWARAN AYIRAPPARAMBIL, EDAPPAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.S.JASMINE RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, PONNANI. GOVT.PLEADER SMT.SUDHADEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/01/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 2670 OF 2009 (P) ==================== Dated this the 27th day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Ext.P2 order passed by the 1st respondent finding that the vehicle KL-10AB 4648 was involved in the unauthorised transportation of river sand and requiring the petitioner to remit an amount of Rs.2,50,000/-. 2. Although a reading of Ext.P1 shows that the petitioner was given notice and that he had appeared, entirely acting upon the statement of the petitioner that the transportation was without obtaining pass, petitioner is held liable. However, the explanation of the petitioner is that the transportation was not from a kadavu and that he was transporting the sand from a place of storage to a site. This is not seen either raised or considered by the 1st respondent. Apart from that, I also notice from Ext.P2 that the 1st respondent was fully guided by the mahazar that was prepared and it is on that basis the petitioner is held guilty. Having regard to the consequences of the order, a better adjudication dealing with the objections raised should have been passed. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of setting aside Ext.P2 and directing the 1st respondent to reconsider the matter with notice to the petitioner and after affording an opportunity to him to file his objections. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp