IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2010 / 14TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 10005 of 2010(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ABDU RAHIMAN, S/O.MOOSAKUTTY, KAMAIPATH HOUSE, CHERUPPA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOZHIKODE CITY, KOZHIKODE. G.P. SHRI.M.A.ASIF THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 10005/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE PERMIT. P2. COPY OF THE PETITION DTD.28.12.09 BEFORE R3. P3. COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DIST. COLLECTOR. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 10005 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 4th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P3 order of the District Collector passed under the provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act. By that order, on allegations of illegal transport of river sand, the petitioner has been directed to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as value of the vehicle, towards river management fund. The finding entered in Ext.P3 is purportedly on the basis of a statement stated to have been filed by the petitioner at the time of hearing, wherein the petitioner is stated to have admitted the guilt. The petitioner denies having filed any such statement. Therefore, I directed the learned Government Pleader to produce the files containing that statement. 2. Today the learned Government Pleader has produced the files. He admits that no such statement of the petitioner admitting his guilt is available in the file. That being so, the statement in Ext.P3 order is clearly unsupported by any material on record. As such, Ext.P3 is quashed. The 1st respondent is directed to reconsider the matter in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. In w.p.c.10005/10 2 the meanwhile, the vehicle shall be released to the petitioner on his satisfying with the conditions prescribed by the Division Bench decision of this Court in District Collector, Malappuram v. Abdul Kasim [2010 (1) KLT SN 31 (C.No.38)], for granting interim custody of vehicle seized under the Act, within one week from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment, before the District Collector. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge