IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2008 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 16788 of 2005(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SHAIJU.M.D., S/O.DEVASSY, MANJALI HOUSE, PALLISSERY DESOM, ARATTUPUZHA VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.N.P.SAMUEL RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SHORNUR. 3. THE TAHASILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, OTTAPPALAM. BY G.P. SRI..P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C).No. 16788/05. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1. COPY OF THE CASH MEMORANDUM DTD.15.5.05 BY THE PANCHAYAT. P2. COPY OF THE PETITION BEFORE R1 DTD.13.5.05. P3. COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD.20.5.05 BY R1. P4. COPY OF THE PETITION DTD.21.5.05 BEFORE R1. Sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.16788 of 2005 ================== Dated this the 26th day of May, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner's lorry bearing registration No.KCE-5680 has been seized on allegations of illicit transportation of sand on 12.5.2005. The same has culminated in Ext.P3 order imposing a penalty of Rs.25,000/- on the petitioner. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P3 order. According to the petitioner, the transportation of sand was with appropriate cash memorandum in P Form as is evidenced by Ext.P1. He had the necessary permits for transportation of sand also, according to the petitioner. The petitioner contends that despite this evidence, without referring to any of the evidence submitted by the petitioner, Ext.P3 order has been passed in a printed form simply filling up blank spaces and entering name, number of the vehicle, fine etc. The petitioner challenges the same as totally illegal and unsustainable. No counter affidavit has been filed in this case. Therefore, the averments of the petitioner in the writ petition have to be w.p.c.16788/05 2 accepted as true and correct. Added to that, Ext.P3 order is in a printed form without referring to any of the contentions of the petitioner simply filing up blank spaces and entering name of the petitioner, number of the lorry, amount of find etc. From the same it is clear that the 1st respondent has not applied his mind to the case and passed the order mechanically without reference to the evidence available before him. This is not what is expected of the 1st respondent while passing orders of like nature. In any event, in view of the fact that Ext.P1 stands uncontroverted, the petitioner's contentions are to be accepted. Accordingly, I quash Ext.P3 order and allow the writ petition. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE