IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 21ST FEBRUARY 2008 / 2ND PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 6140 of 2008(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SIDDIQUE, S/O. KASMI, MULLANJERY HOUSE, THEKKANKUTTUR P.O., THIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.HARILAL SRI.R.GOPAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, THIRUR. BY G.P.SRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Antony Dominic, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 6140 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21st day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P7 order. In this case an autorickshaw has been proceeded against on the allegation that it was involved in unauthorized transportation of river sand violating the provisions contained in the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act. Initially an order was passed against the petitioner directing him to pay an amount of Rs.35,000/- as the value of the vehicle and a fine of Rs.25,000/- to the River Management Fund. That order was challenged before this Court and by Ext.P5 judgment this Court found that the value and penalty fixed are far too disproportionate to the offences made out. Hence this Court quashed the order and directed the 2nd respondent to consider the matter afresh. In the appeal filed against the said judgment, these findings were not disturbed. However, though the matter was reconsidered as directed, the 2nd respondent found the petitioner guilty and directed to remit the same amount towards value and fine. 2. Having gone through Ext.P7 order now passed, I am not in a position to disagree with the findings of the 2nd respondent regarding the WPC 6140/08 -2- involvement of the petitioner in the transportation of river sand. However, coming to the value of the vehicle and fine that are imposed, I should say that the 2nd respondent ought not have fixed the same figure when this Court has already held that the value and the fine fixed were disproportionate to the offence made out. Once the court has held so, the 2nd respondent is bound to accept the finding in the judgment. In this factual background, I feel ends of justice will be met, if the petitioner remits Rs.20,000/- towards value of the vehicle and Rs.10,000/- towards fine. Subject to the modification, the writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Antony Dominic, Judge. mn.