IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 4TH JULY 2008 / 13TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 34946 of 2005(I) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- ABDUL SALEEM K.M., S/O.M.M.MUHAMMAD, AGED 34 YEARS, KARAYIKKUDATHU HOUSE, EAST VELIYATHUNADU, U.C.COLLEGE P.O., ALUVA VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT (OWNER OF THE VEHICLE BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL/7-A-8089) BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALUVA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).34946/2005-I APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 13/12/2005. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL // TRUE COPY // Rs/ K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 34946 OF 2005 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ The petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle KL-7A-8089. The said vehicle was seized by the 2nd respondent, Sub Inspector of police, on 7.12.2005, on the allegation that it was used for transporting river sand without valid permit for the same. The vehicle was produced before the 1st respondent on the next day. The petitioner submits that, in fact, he had valid pass for transporting river sand. So, he submitted a representation dated 8.12.2005 before the 1st respondent to release the vehicle. But, the 1st respondent District Collector passed Ext.P1 order, directing the petitioner to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P1. 2. According to the petitioner, the order has been passed without notice to him or hearing him. Further, the District Collector has no power or authority to impose a fine. It is within the domain of the criminal court to impose a fine on him. W.P.(C) No.34946/2005 2 3. The learned Government Pleader does not have any instruction in the matter. 4. Going by the order, I feel that the same cannot be sustained. The order does not speak of the date or the place from where the vehicle was seized. It also does not show that the petitioner was put on notice regarding the allegation against him and given a chance to put forward his version. So, the order is passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, Ext.P1 is quashed. The 1st respondent, District Collector, shall hear the petitioner and pass fresh orders in the matter, in accordance with law, within three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall keep alive the bank guarantee furnished by him, pursuant to the interim order of this Court, dated 15.12.2005, till final orders are passed by the District collector as directed above. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) ps