IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2010 / 31ST ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20313 of 2010(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JOSHY.P.L., S/O. LONAPPAN, AGED 34 YEARS PORATHUR-HOUSE, PARAPPUR.P.O., THOLUR-VILLAGE, THRISSUR DIST. (RC OWNER AND POSSESSOR OF KL-08-AP-5803) BY ADV. SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, MALAPPURAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHANGARAMKULAM POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.20313 OF 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext.P4 order of the District Collector, Malappuram under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, by which, on a finding that the petitioner has used his vehicle for illegal transportation of river sand, the petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- as value of the vehicle, towards River Management Fund. The petitioner's contention is that the petitioner has not transported river sand, but transported only ordinary sand. 2. The learned Government Pleader has filed a statement, wherein the contention taken is that at the time of hearing, the petitioner himself submitted before the District Collector that the vehicle was seized with river sand and that there was no pass for transportation of that sand. That statement was reduced to writing and the petitioner has signed the same also. Therefore, according to the learned Government W.P.(c)No.20313/10 2 Pleader, the petitioner cannot now take a different stand, after having admitted the violation before the District Collector. He would further point out that even assuming that the petitioner's contention that what was transported is only ordinary sand is correct, that sand also should have been accompanied by a P-Form pass issued under Rule 48K of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules. The petitioner has no case that the transport was accompanied by such a pass also, is the contention raised by the learned Government Pleader. Therefore that contention cannot also be believed is the submission made. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. The petitioner does not allege any malafides against the District Collector. The learned counsel for the petitioner admits that the statement was signed by the petitioner before the District Collector. But he now disowns the contents thereof. I do not think that the petitioner can be permitted to do so, especially in view of the fact that he has no allegation of malafides against the District Collector. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader even ordinary sand should be accompanied by a P-Form pass issued under Rule 48K. The W.P.(c)No.20313/10 3 petitioner has no case that the sand was accompanied by such a pass also. Therefore that contention cannot be believed. That being so, there is no merit in the contention of the petitioner that he has not violated the provisions of the Act and Rules. Therefore, this writ petition is without any merit and accordingly, the same is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(c)No.20313/10 4