IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2009 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 7459 of 2009(B) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ SIRAJUDHEEN, S/O. MUHAMMED, AGED 22 YEARS, PERISSERY HOUSE, PANTHEERANKAVU, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VAZHAKKAD POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 7459 OF 2009 (B) ==================== Dated this the 11th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T Ext.P1 is the order under challenge. This order has been passed by the 1st respondent exercising his powers under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 concluding that the vehicle belonging to the petitioner bearing Regn.No.KL-11/AA.7312 was involved in the unauthorised transportation of river sand. On that basis, petitioner has been directed to remit Rs.1,50,000/-, being the value of the vehicle. 2. A reading of the order shows that it was the case of the petitioner that the lorry was empty at the time of seizure. According to him, the contents of the mahazar to the contrary is factually incorrect. 3. A reading of the order shows that it is entirely relying on the aforesaid mahazar that the order has been passed. In my view, since the correctness of the mahazar itself is the issue raised , it is incumbent on the part of the 1st respondent, who is exercising the quasi judicial power of adjudication, to appreciate WPC 7459/09 :2 : the case independent of the mahazar and come to a conclusion of his own. In the facts of this case, the contents of the mahazar could not have been acted upon without such corroboration. This has not been done in Ext.P1 and for that reason, I am inclined to set aside the same. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P1 and directing that it will be open to the 1st respondent to pass fresh orders in the matter with notice to the petitioner. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp