IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2010 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 26774 of 2004(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHIHUB.C., S/O.YAHUTTY, AGED 29 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHEMMALA HOUSE, P.O.VETTAM, THRIPRAGONT TALUK, MALAPPURAM (DT). BY ADV. SRI.SURAJ.S RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM (DT). 4. THE TAHSILDAR, TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM (DT). GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K. RAMESH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/05/2010, THE COURT, ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 26774/2004. --------------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT. 1-9-2004. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 26774 of 2004 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 28th day of May, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging Ext. P1 order. Ext. P1 order is passed by the 2nd respondentDistrict Collector under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 20,000/- as value of the vehicle towards River Management Fund for using the vehicle for unauthorised transport of river sand. 2. The writ petition reads thus: “1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 1-9-2004 issued by the 2nd respondent by which a fine of Rs.20,000/- is imposed on the vehicle KL-11-E/3891 under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 (the Act in short). 2. It is submitted that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle KL-11-E/3891. The above vehicle was stopped and confiscated by the 3rd respondent on the ground that the vehicle was used for transporting river sand illegally on 17-6-2004. 3. It is submitted that the 3rd respondent issued a show cause notice to the petitioner to show cause why the vehicle shall not be confiscated for violation of the Act. It is further submitted that on 25-8-2004 the petitioner was also heard subsequent to the show cause notice and submitted that the vehicle was not transporting the sand in violation of the Act. 4. It is submitted that the petitioner is informed by an order No. B8.227387/04 of the 2nd respondent by which a fine of Rs.20,000/- has been imposed under the provisions of the Act. And also that the vehicle would be sold in public auction if the fine amount is not remitted within one month of receipt of the order. A true copy of the order No. B8. 27387/04 dated 1-9-2004 of the 1st respondent is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit P1. 5. It is submitted that the income from the vehicle is the only means of livelihood for the petitioner. The above vehicle is subject to be sold in public auction, the petitioner has no other means of livelihood except the income from the lorry. The order is unreasonable. It is also submitted that the vehicle is in the custody of the 3rd respondent since 17-6-2004. Hence this writ petition. W.P.C. No. 26774/2004 -: 2 :- Petitioner has no other effective remedy than to approach this Honourable Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India and pray for appropriate reliefs on the following among other. GROUNDS A. Exhibit P1 order is unreasonable, arbitrary and unjust. B. A reading of Exhibit P1 order is issued without taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case. C. The petitioner has no other means other than the income from the lorry which is confiscated. D. The lorry is lying with the respondents for so may days and put to face the raths of nature, and also there by putting the petitioner into very serious financial crisis.” In the writ petition, I do not find any grounds as to how Ext. P1 is bad except a blank statement that Ext. P1 order is unreasonable, arbitrary and unjust. There is not even an averment in the writ petition that the transport is not of river sand and that the petitioner has been transporting the sand with valid documents. Even otherwise, the petitioner has not produced any documents to show that the transport of sand was legal and valid. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the challenge against Ext. P1 order. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/