IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 7TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 16TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 13566 of 2010(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- PRINCE AUGUSTINE, AGED 27, S/O AUGUSTINE, MALLATTU HOUSE, KATTAPPANA P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.A.MOHAMMED SHAH SRI.P.H.SHAJAHAN RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, ALAPPUZHA. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA. GOVT.PLEADER SIR.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 13566 OF 2010 (U) ===================== Dated this the 7th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P7, an order passed by the District Collector exercising his powers under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001, confiscating Lorry No.KL-3 F/7050 belonging to the petitioner and permitting him to redeem the same on payment of the value assessed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner impugnes the finding in Ext.P7 that at the time of seizure, the driver did not possess any pass, on the ground that, at the time of seizure, the vehicle was not one loaded with river sand. However, this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner stands contradicted by the contents of Ext.P3, the mahazar prepared at the time of seizure of the vehicle, which shows that the vehicle was in a loaded condition. This Court has no material to conclude that the said finding contained in Ext.P3 is incorrect, and if that be so, at the time of its seizure, driver ought to have possessed the pass justifying transportation of the river sand. Admittedly, pass WPC No. 13566/10 :2 : was not available, and if that be so, the conclusion of the District Collector in that respect does not call for interference. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the genuineness of the pass having been confirmed by the Geologist, the District Collector ought not have ordered confiscation. I am not persuaded to interfere. Even if it is accepted that the pass was genuine, that does not mean that the vehicle could have transported the river sand without the driver possessing the pass. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp