IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 24TH JULY 2009 / 2ND SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 9409 of 2009(U) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ IBRAHIM KHALEEL, PAIKKA, THALANGARA WEST, KASARGOD. BY ADV. SRI.AUGUSTINE JOSEPH SRI.K.S.ROCKEY RESPONDENT: -------------------- THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 9409 of 2009(U) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 : COPY OF ORDER DATED 18.2.2009 OF THE RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE. app/- V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.9409 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 24th July, 2009 J U D G M E N T Vehicle belonging to the petitioner, Tata mini lorry bearing registration No.KL.10.B.1339 was seized on the allegation that it was involved in unauthorised transportation of river sand. According to the petitioner his sister requested some sea sand for the construction work of her new house and accordingly he transported the same. 2. The matter was considered by the District Collector who took note to the fact that the same vehicle was involved in unauthorised transportation on two occasions earlier. Accordingly Ext.P1 order passed, directing the petitioner to remit an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards the value of the vehicle. This is challenged in the writ petition. 3. The learned Government Pleader had produced the files leading to Ext.P1 and I have perused the same. Petitioner had submitted a representation before the W.P ( C) No.9409 of 2009 2 Collector and it has to be noted that the petitioner does not have a decision that the transportation of sand was with the aid of a pass. The explanation given by the petitioner that the sand was sea sand, is difficult of acceptance. Sea sand is not commonly used for construction purposes. At any rate, even transportation of sea sand requires a permit. 4. The finding that the vehicle was involved in the contravention of the provisions of Sand Act does not warrant interference. The value of the vehicle was fixed by an officer of motor vehicle department at Rs.62,000/-, which is quite reasonable. The Collector had directed the petitioner to remit an amount of Rs.50,000/-, I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. But if the petitioner is ready to pay the amount fixed under Ext.P1 within four weeks from today, he shall be permitted to do so, to avoid sale of the vehicle. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) app/-