IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 5TH MARCH 2009 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 5831 of 2009(Y) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ ABDUL GAFOOR S/O.MOHAMMED, AGED 30 YEARS VENGASSERI VALIYIDAM HOUSE,KARUMARAKKAD AMSOM MUNDUMUZHI DESOM, ERANAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.R.SUDHISH SMT.M.MANJU RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 5831 OF 2009 (Y) ==================== Dated this the 5th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P1, an order passed by the District Collector exercising his powers under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 and the Rules. On the basis that the vehicle KL-11 AA/8180, of which the petitioner is the registered owner, was involved in the unauthorised transportation of river sand, petitioner has been levied a fine of Rs.25,000/- and ordered to pay Rs.2,25,000/- being the value of the vehicle towards the River Management Fund. Although, it was the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that there was no enquiry with notice to him preceding Ext.P1, contends of the order itself proves otherwise. Secondly, learned counsel raised contentions regarding the non service of mahazar and the illegality in levying fine. 2. Irrespective of the technical contentions that are raised before me, fact remains that during the course of the enquiry, petitioner could not produce the pass authorising transportation of river sand. That apart, even in this writ petition, the pass has not been produced and to the specific querry in this behalf, counsel for the petitioner is not able to give a clear WPC 5831/09 :2 : answer about the very existence of the pass itself. In these circumstances, I am not persuaded to invalidate the order on technical grounds in view of the admitted position that the petitioner did not have the necessary pass to legitimize the transportation of river sand. 3. However, I should accept the contention of the counsel for the petitioner regarding the incompetence of the District Collector to levy the fine, as has been done in Ext.P1. Therefore, that part of the order needs to be invalidated and I do so. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing that on the remittance of the value of the vehicle ordered to be paid, the vehicle in question should be released to the petitioner. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp