IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2010 / 27TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 35821 of 2009(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ANEESH, S/O.AHAMMAD KUTTY, KATTOORAN HOUSE, PANNIPPARA P.O., EDAVANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, NILAMBUR POLICE STATION, NILAMBUR. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.M.A.ASIF THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 35821/09. APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE PASS. P2. COPY OF THE PASS. P3. COPY OF THE LETTER FROM THE GARAGE. P4. COPY OF THE MAHZAR DTD.30.3.09. P5. COPY OF THE OBJECTION BEFORE R2. P6. P ORDER BY R2 DTD.16.9.09. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 35821 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 17th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging Ext.P6 order passed by the 2nd respondent-District Collector in exercise of his powers under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act. By that order, the District Collector, on a finding that the petitioner's vehicle had been used for illegal transportation of river sand in violation of the Act and Rules, directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as the value of the vehicle towards river management fund. The contention of the petitioner is that the transport was supported by valid P form issued by the appropriate authority. The petitioner relies on Exts.P2 and P3 in support of the same. According to him, by Ext.P2 pass issued at 1.30 p.m. with a time limit of one hour, the petitioner was permitted to transport the sand in question. But unfortunately, the vehicle developed mechanical trouble, which had to be rectified. The defect was rectified later and the transport was continued, during which time, the lorry with sand was seized. The petitioner would, therefore, contend that the transport was perfectly legal and valid and, therefore, the District Collector had no reason to find violation of the Act and Rules so as to direct the petitioner to pay the amount towards river management fund. w.p.c.35821/09 2 2. The contention of the learned Government Pleader is that the entire case of the petitioner is a cooked up one to suit his contentions, which is against the facts of the case. He points out that the petitioner never informed any authority about the mechanical trouble to the lorry. He has also not proved his contentions with sufficient materials, is the Government Pleader's submission. He submits that the only conclusion possible in the circumstances is that the petitioner has transported more than one consignment using the same pass. According to the Government Pleader, therefore, Ext.P6 is perfectly valid and proper. 3. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 4. It is true that Ext.P2 pass was issued at 1.30 p.m. in the forenoon with a period of validity of the pass as one hour. The petitioner's contention is that at 2 O' clock the vehicle developed mechanical trouble. In support of his contention he has produced Ext.P3 letter from an auto garage stating that at about 2 p.m. on 30.3.2009 the vehicle was lined by the side of the road at Thuvakkad, he attended the same on a call from the petitioner, that the defect was cured by 6.45 p.m. and that the vehicle was returned to the driver. The petitioner has no case that the petitioner has informed anybody in authority about the defect in the vehicle between 1.30 p.m. and 7 O' clock. There was sufficient time for the petitioner to inform w.p.c.35821/09 3 the appropriate authority about the same or to get the pass validated appropriately. As per the seizure mahazar at the time of seizure, the vehicle did not contain any valid document in support of the transport. He has also not chosen to produce the mechanic who issued Ext.P3 letter for cross-examination and therefore, Ext.P3 letter cannot be relied upon. In the above circumstances, I do not find anything wrong with the District Collector disbelieving the case of the petitioner and finding that this was only a ruse to transport river sand using the same pass again. The petitioner has not been able to satisfy me with satisfactory material that the findings in Ext.P6 are in any way wrong. Therefore, the challenge against Ext.P6 fails and accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge