IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2010 / 11TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 14504 of 2010(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BAJI, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O. NARAYANAN, CHEMPRA HOUSE, ANTHODE.P.O., CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. (OWNER OF VEHICLE BEARING REG. NO.KL-08-V-9499) BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PONNANI POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY G.P.SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.14504 OF 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of JUNE, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging Ext.P2 final order passed by the District Collector pursuant to seizure of the petitioner’s vehicle on allegations of violation of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. According to the petitioner, the transport was covered by a valid pass. He has produced Ext.P1 claiming to be the pass for the same. Admittedly, an interim order was passed releasing the vehicle on certain conditions. The petitioner did not avail of the benefit of that order. Admittedly, the petitioner had received a notice for final hearing. Ext.P2 order specifically says that the owner of the vehicle did not appear for the hearing. The petitioner does not dispute the fact that he had actually received a notice for final hearing. He has not offered any explanation whatsoever in the writ petition as to why he did not produce Ext.P1 pass at any time before the authorities. As such, I am not inclined to rely on W.P.(c)No.14504/10 2 Ext.P1 pass at this point of time. As such, the petitioner has not been able to prove that the transport of the sand was with appropriate documents. That would go to show that the transport was in violation of the Act and Rules. Therefore, the finding that the petitioner is guilty of violation of the Act and Rules is not liable to be interfered with. Regarding the amount to be paid by the petitioner towards River Management Fund, the vehicle has been duly assessed by the Joint Regional Transport Officer. The petitioner has not been able to satisfy me that assessment of the value of the vehicle in any way inflated or excessive. On that ground also, I am unable to accept the contention of the petitioner. In the above circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in Ext.P2. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(c)No.14504/10 3 W.P.(c)No.14504/10 4