IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 30TH AUGUST 2010 / 8TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 20666 of 2010(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- AHAMMED.K., AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.KUNJAHAMMED, KATTIKULANGARA HOUSE, CHATTIPPARAMBA P.O., KOLATHUR - VIA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT (R C OWNER KL10/AB-9533). BY ADV. SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, MALAPPURAM - 01. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLATHUR POLICE STATION, KOLATHUR P.O., MALAPPURAM - DT. 679 338. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.DILEEP MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.20666/10 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE RC BOOK OF THE VEHICLE KL-10/AB-9533 DT 19.8.08. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DT 13.1.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.1459/10 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT DT 15.1.10. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER PASSED BY 1ST RESPONDENT IN P6-4921/10 DT 27.3.10. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE VEHICLE KL-10/AB- 9533 DT NIL. vi/ //TRUE COPY// PS TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.20666 OF 2010(G) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P4, an order passed by the first respondent, exercising his powers under the Kerala Protection of River Bank and Regulation on Transportation of River Sand Act, 2001. 2. Petitioner submits that he is the registered owner of a mini lorry bearing registration No.KL-10/AB-9533. The vehicle was seized on 12.1.2010, on the allegation that it was used for carrying river sand without any permit. Immediately thereafter, on 13.1.2010, petitioner submitted Ext.P2 representation to the first respondent denying the allegation that the vehicle was used for transporting river sand. Thereafter, he approached this court and in Ext.P3 judgment, this court directed the first respondent to pass final orders. Accordingly, notice was issued, petitioner was heard and Ext.P4 order has been issued, rejecting the contentions of the petitioner and concluding that the vehicle was used for the unauthorized transportation of river sand. WPC.No.20666 /2010 :2 : 3. Counsel contends that the finding that the vehicle was used for unauthorized transportation of river sand is incorrect. However, a reading of Ext.P4 order shows that, it was on the basis of the materials available before him that the District Collector has come to the conclusion that the lorry was used for transporting river sand, and that, at the time of seizure, the driver had confessed the nonavailability of any document legitimizing the transportation. A copy of the mahazar available with the Government Pleader duly signed by the driver of the vehicle also shows that the finding of the District collector in Ext.P4 order is fully justified. In such a situation, the conclusion of the authorities that the vehicle was used for unauthorized transportation of the river sand cannot be faulted. If that be so, the view taken by the District Collector in Ext.P4 cannot be faulted. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/