IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2010 / 31ST BHADRA 1932 WA.No. 1433 of 2010 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.22843/2010 Dated 29/07/2010 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER --------------------------- NOUSHAD, S/O.KUNHI MOHAMMED, AGED 21 YEARS, KALLUVETTIKUZHI VEEDU, MUKKATTA KARA, NILAMBUR VILLAGE, NILAMBUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.V.GEORGE SRI.JIMMY GEORGE (THADATHIL) RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NILAMBUR POLICE STATION, NILAMBUR. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVASIS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No. 1433 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT Ramachandra Menon, J. The appellant is challenging the correctness and sustainability of the verdict passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby interference was declined with regard to the challenge raised against Ext.P4 order passed by the District Collector, pursuant to the confiscation of the vehicle concerned, which was found transporting 'river sand', contrary to the statutory requirements. 2. The sequence of events as narrated in the writ petition shows that the appellant herein was transporting river sand, in his own autorickshaw(goods) bearing No.KL-02-AB-53, which was purchased from a permit holder, when it was seized by the concerned Sub Inspector of Police. As the transportation of the material was without any valid pass, the vehicle and the goods were handed over for further action, to the District Collector, which culminated in Ext.P4. WA No. 1433 of 2010 -:2:- 3. It is seen that during the course of the proceedings before the District Collector, an opportunity was given to the petitioner to substantiate his case. However, the contention raised by the appellant before the District Collector was that he was transporting the river sand from 'one site to another' and the only request made by him before the District Collector was to reduce the liability and to enable the petitioner to have the vehicle released. 4. When the matter came up before a learned Judge of this Court, the contentions were taken note of and interference was declined, holding that there was absolutely no case to the appellant to the effect that the transportation of the material was on the strength of a valid pass. The contention before this Court was that he was effecting construction of a residential building in the property belonging to his mother and in connection with this, the river sand was being transported after purchasing it from a valid permit holder. No such contention was ever raised before the District Collector. The value of the vehicle has fixed in Ext.P4, on the basis of the report of the concerned RTO in this WA No. 1433 of 2010 -:3:- regard. As such, no interference is called for on these heads. 5. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court by way of writ appeal, the appellant filed an Interlocutory Application seeking to amend the appeal and to include two new paragraphs as 9 and 10; which was allowed as per the order dated 9.9.2010 in I.A.No.693 of 2010. Reference is made to the relevant Ordinance promulgated and the course and events to be pursued in connection with the provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Banks & Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that on the date of passing Ext.P4 order, the above Ordinance was very much in existence and this being the position, there was no power or jurisdiction to the District Collector, to have passed Ext.P4 order on the relevant date. It is now contended that the proceedings ought to have been pursued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, whereupon the petitioner would have had an opportunity to file a Revision Petition before the District Collector and then to file an Appeal before the District Court. 7. Going by the sequence of events, it goes without saying WA No. 1433 of 2010 -:4:- that the petitioner was well aware of the Ordinance when he chose to file the above writ petition, seeking to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, instead of seeking the benefit of alternate remedy, if any. It is very much on record that the petitioner has suffered Ext.P4 at the hands of the District Collector and the merit was subjected to challenge by approaching this Court, which has been considered by a learned Single Judge and a verdict has been passed. This being the position, the alleged loss of opportunity by filing Revision/Appeal, referring to the provisions in the Ordinance has become redundant. The contentions raised before this Court are untenable and do not call for any interference. The writ appeal is dismissed accordingly. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice. P.R. Ramachandra Menon, Judge. ttb WA No. 1433 of 2010 -:5:-