IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2010 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 16405 of 2010(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- HARIDASAN, S/O. MUNDAN 1/253, PAZHAMBRAM VEEDU, KUTTIPPURAM.P.O., TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.KRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SUB. INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHANGARAMKULAM. 2. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR,(ELECTION) MALAPPURAM. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY REVENUE, TRIVANDRUM. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 16405 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 28th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext.P7 order of the District Collector, Malappuram, passed under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act. By that order, on a finding that the petitioner has unauthorizedly transported river sand in violation of the Act and Rules, the petitioner has been directed to pay an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- as the value of the vehicle towards River Management Fund. The petitioner's contention is that the transport was supported by Ext.P1 pass issued by the Kuttipuram Grama Panchayat and therefore, there was no reason for the District Collector even to suspect that the transport was illegal and unauthorized. The petitioner also submits that the valuation of the vehicle is exorbitant and even if this Court confirms the finding of guilt, the amount to be paid is liable to be reduced. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader and considered the contentions of both parties. 3. In Ext.P7 order, the District Collector has specifically found that at the time of seizure, the sand was not accompanied by any documents whatsoever. The petitioner has no case that the sand is not river sand. Therefore, I need consider only whether Ext.P1 pass w.p.c.16405/10 2 supports the transport. The petitioner would contend that Ext.P1 is a pass for transport of river sand. But from Ext.P1, I find that that is in respect of ....................... (ordinary sand). The petitioner has no case that ............... ...... is ................... (river sand). Therefore, clearly Ext.P1 pass does not support the transport in question. As such, the petitioner has not been able to satisfy me that the finding regarding the liability in Ext.P7 is in anyway vitiated. From Ext.P7 it is clear that the valuation was fixed by the Joint RTO as per his report dated 6.3.2010. I have no reason to assume that the same is in any way inflated or excessive. The petitioner has not produced any material in support of his contention that the value fixed is not the actual value of the vehicle. For the above reasons, I do not find any merit in the challenge against Ext.P7 order and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge