IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2011 / 5TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 6441 of 2010(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SUNIL, S/O.KUTTAN, THAIKKUTTATHIL VEEDU MADAPLATHURUTHU DESOM, MOOTHAKUNNAM, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.R.SUDHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. ARAVINDKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX Ext.P1. True copy of the agreement executed by the petitioner with the vendor Anilkumar dated 18.7.2009. Ext.P2. True copy of the order passed by the Ist respondent dated 21.12.2009. Ext.P3. True copy of te receipt issued to the said Gireesh, by the District Collector for remitting an amount of Rs.20,000/- dated 18.1.2010. // true copy// P.S to Judge. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.6441 OF 2010(E) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P2. Ext.P2 is an order passed by the District Collector exercising his powers under Section 23 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation on Removal of Sand Act. A reading of the order shows that the vehicle of the petitioner bearing registration No.KL-14-1244 was proceeded against on the allegation that it was involved in the unauthorized transportation of river sand. The order also shows that when the petitioner was heard he could not produce any documents legitimizing the transportation. If that be so, finding of guilt as entered by the District Collector is sustainable. Then what remains is the question regarding the value that is fixed. The order shows that the value was fixed by the Regional Transport Officer, Kodungallur and it is on that basis, petitioner was called upon to remit Rs.56,000/-. Nothing has been produced by the petitioner to show that the value fixed is arbitrary. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No. /09 :2 :