IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 21353 of 2009(L) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- RAJAN, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.KUMARAN, 7/28, PUTHUVEETTIL HOUSE, EZHUVATHIRUTHY, PONNANI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.JOBI JOSE KONDODY RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERUMBADAPPU POLICE STATION, VANNERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE SECRETARY, PONNANI MUNICIPALITY, PONNANI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.P.N.SANTHOSH R3 BY ADVS.MR.C.V.MANUVILSAN, MR.P.K.KHALEEMUDHEEN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/11/2009, THE COURT ON 12/11/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.21353/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER'S VEHICLE BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL-10U 2963. P2:- COPY OF THE 'P' FORM PRODUCED BY THE PETITIONER'S DRIVER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 4.5.09. P3:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 29.5.09 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. P4:- COPY OF THE FINAL ADJUDICATION ORDER PASSED BY THE IST RESPONDENT DTD. 6.6.09. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss P.N.RAVINDRAN,J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.21353 of 2009 - L ---------------------------------------- Dated 12th November, 2009 Judgment Heard Sri.Jobi Jose Kondody, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.P.N.Santhosh, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is the registered owner of a goods vehicle bearing registration No.KL-10U 2963. The said vehicle was seized by the second respondent on 4.5.2009 on the allegation that it was used to transport river sand without a valid pass. Thereupon, proceedings were initiated under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 and the Rules framed thereunder. On coming to know of the seizure of the vehicle, the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 petition dated 29.5.2009 before the District Collector, Malappuram wherein he, inter alia, stated that the sand transported in his vehicle was covered by a valid pass, that the vehicle had to be stopped when the main leaf broke, that the Sub Inspector of Police seized the vehicle thereafter, within the W.P.(C) No.21353/2009 2 time stipulated in the pass and that his vehicle was not used to transport river sand without a valid pass. In Ext.P3, the petitioner requested the District Collector to release the vehicle to him. On receipt of Ext.P3, the District Collector conducted a hearing on 29.5.2009 and passed Ext.P4 order dated 6.6.2009 ordering confiscation of the vehicle. The District Collector however permitted the petitioner to avoid confiscation by remitting the sum of Rs.1,40,000/- determined as the value of the vehicle, in the River Management Fund. Ext.P4 is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. The petitioner contends that the District Collector did not apply his mind to relevant and material facts when he held in Ext.P4 order that his vehicle was used to transport river sand without a valid pass. The petitioner contends that he had in Ext.P3 pointed out that the vehicle could not be driven as the main leaf broke and that was the reason for the delay in transporting the load of sand carried therein. He also contends that the time limit fixed in the pass had not expired when the vehicle was seized. W.P.(C) No.21353/2009 3 4. When this writ petition came up for hearing on 25.9.2009, this Court directed the Regional Transport Officer, Malappuram to depute an officer of his choice to inspect the petitioner's vehicle and to file a report in this Court within two weeks from that date. The Regional Transport Officer, Malappuram accordingly caused the petitioner's vehicle to be inspected by the Motor Vehicles Inspector, Ponnani who, after inspection, submitted a report to the effect that right side main leaf of the vehicle is in a broken condition. The said information was conveyed to the learned Advocate General in letter dated 12.10.2009 sent by the Regional Transport Officer, Malappuram the original of which has been produced along with the memo dated 31.10.2009 filed by the learned Government Pleader. 5. It is evident from the report submitted by the Regional Transport Officer, Malappuram that the main leaf on the right side of the petitioner's vehicle is broken. The District Collector has not in Ext.P4 order taken note of this aspect though the petitioner had pointedly referred to the said aspect in Ext.P3 petition. It is evident from Ext.P4 order that the District W.P.(C) No.21353/2009 4 Collector did not advert to the said aspect which according to me is a relevant factor in determining whether there was avoidable delay in transporting river sand. Further, the District Collector has not in Ext.P4 order stated the point of time at which the vehicle was intercepted and seized. In any case, it is evident that as the main leaf of the vehicle was broken, the vehicle could not have been driven thereafter, carrying a full load of sand. The District Collector has in Ext.P4 also stated that the petitioner has not explained the reason why he did not inform the authorities that his vehicle had suffered a break down. Apart from the fact that there is no rule or stipulation regarding that aspect of the matter or the authority to whom a report in that regard has to be given, it is evident from Ext.P3 that this aspect was brought to the notice of the District Collector. The vehicle was seized on 4.5.2009. The Police officer who seized the vehicle could have ascertained whether the main leaf had broken as claimed by the petitioner even on that day. Ever since 4.5.2009, the vehicle is in the custody of the Police. From the materials on record, it is evident that there was no ground to proceed against the petitioner's W.P.(C) No.21353/2009 5 vehicle, even if the time limit fixed in the pass had expired, as the main leaf of the vehicle was broken. That is a reasonable explanation for the delay if any in transporting the sand. In such circumstances, it cannot be held that the petitioner's vehicle was used to transport river sand in violation of Rule 29 (8) of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Rules, 2002. I accordingly hold that Ext.P4 order passed by the District Collector ordering confiscation of the petitioner's vehicle cannot be sustained. In the result, I allow the writ petition, quash Ext.P4 and direct the respondents to forthwith release the vehicle bearing registration No.KL/10U 2963 to the petitioner after unloading the sand carried therein. P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge vaa