IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2010 / 8TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 21524 of 2010(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SANTHOSHKUMAR, S/O.SUBRAMANYAN, VALIYAVEETTIL VEEDU, PALLAPRAM, PONNANI. BY ADV. SANTHOSHKUMAR [PARTY-IN-PERSON] B/O RESPONDENT(S): --------------- DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No.21524/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE CERTIFICATE. P2. COPY OF THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE. P3. COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.20.3.2010. P4. COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD.28.4.2010. P5. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.25.5.2010. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 21524 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 30th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P5 order of the District Collector, Malappuram, whereby, on a finding that the petitioner has used his vehicle for illegal transportation of river sand in violation of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, the petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,30,000/- as value of the vehicle towards river management fund. 2. When this writ petition came up for admission on 14.7.2010, I passed the following interim order on the basis of the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner: “Counsel for the petitioner submits that counsel has already relinquished vakalath of the petitioner and a memo has also been produced. He further submits that the petitioner has already been informed about the same. Post on 21.7.2010. Show the name of the petitioner in the cause list as party appearing in person.” Thereafter, the matter again came up on 21.7.2010, on which date, I again passed the following order, which is self explanatory. “The counsel for the petitioner relinquished vakalath. Therefore, by order dated 14.7.2010, I directed that the petitioner's name be shown in the cause-list as party appearing in person. Accordingly, today, in the cause-list, the name of the petitioner has been included. When the case was taken up, the petitioner is not present. To give the petitioner another chance, post for disposal next week.” This writ petition is coming up today in such circumstances. The name of the petitioner has been printed in the cause-list as party w.p.c.21524/2010 2 appearing in person. He is not present. Since this Court cannot wait any longer, I have considered the matter on merits. 3. From Ext.P5, I find that the petitioner had appeared before the District Collector and admitted that at the time of transport, the petitioner did not have a valid pass for transport of river sand and the vehicle may be released imposing a small amount of fine. That means that the petitioner had admitted his guilt before the District Collector. Even otherwise, the District Collector has specifically stated that as per the seizure mahazar, the petitioner had transported river sand without a valid pass. The petitioner has not produced any material to controvert the findings of the Collector. As such, there is no merit in the challenge against Ext.P5 order and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge