IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 13TH MARCH 2009 / 22ND PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 8103 of 2009(G) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ABOOBACKER, S/O.AZEES, MANGADAKUZHIYIL HOUSE, PALACHODU P.O., ANGADIPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, MALAPPURAM. MR.P.N.SANTHOSH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.8103 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 13th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T Ext.P3 order is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. By this order, the District Collector has found that the vehicle bearing Regn.No.KL-11/AF-8865, a 1997 model Tata Lorry, was engaged in the unauthorised transportation of river sand and on that basis, the petitioner has been ordered to remit Rs.80,000/- being the value of the vehicle to the River Management Fund for release of the vehicle. It is challenging this orders, the writ petition is filed. 3. A reading of the order itself shows, even according to the petitioner, that though the pass was in relation to a kadavu called Karukamanna, river sand in question was lifted from a kadavu called Pilakadavu. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this was a mistake, there is absolutely no material to justify this submission. On facts, it is admitted that river sand was not lifted from the designated kadavu, but from another place and if so, the findings of violation of the provisions contained under the Kerala WP(C) No.8103/2009 -2- Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Sand Mining Act cannot be faulted. 4. Then what remains to be considered is the value of the vehicle fixed at Rs.80,000/-. The learned Government Pleader submits that the value of the vehicle has been fixed on the basis of the assessment done by the officers of the Motor Vehicles Department. Therefore, I see, absolutely, no justification to interfere with Ext.P3 order. Therefore, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg