IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2010 / 16TH POUSHA 1931 WA.No. 1628 of 2009 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.163/2009 Dated 21/01/2009 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------------------- SAJEEV.K.S., AGED 39 YEARS,S/O.KUNJAN SREEDHARAN, KARTHIKAPPALLIL HOUSE,VADAVATHOOR P.O., VIJAYAPURAM,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU CHERUKARA SRI.ANZAR BASHEER RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION,KOTTAYAM. 2. THE TAHASILDAR,VAIKOM TALUK,VAIKOM. 3. THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST, KOTTAYAM,DISTRICT OFFICE,KOTTAYAM-686001. 4. MR.VINOD,VINOD BHAVAN, KUDAVACHOOR P.O.,VAIKOM. R1 TO R3 BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER, SMT. K. MEERA. R4 BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) SRI.MATHEW SUNNY THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. & Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A.No.1628 of 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 6th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This writ appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge rejecting W.P.(C) No.163 of 2009. 3. The appellant had challenged Ext.P4 order passed by the District Collector exercising his jurisdiction under the Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sad Act, 2001. The appellant was found transporting kayal sand under the permit issued only for ordinary sand. The Tahsildar has given a report in this regard as to the nature of the sand carried in the vehicle. While being questioned, the appellant has only stated that he has not committed any offence knowingly and he is ready to pay the fine. This has been rightly construed W.A. No.1628 of 2009 2 as an admission of the appellant, by the District Collector. Further more, even the report of the Tahsildar in this regard has not been questioned by the appellant either as mala fide or as factually incorrect. In this background, in our view, the learned Single Judge was justified in rejecting the plea of the appellant. We find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Hence the writ appeal is dismissed. S.R.Bannurmath, Chief Justice Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge vns