IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2009 / 26TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 20102 of 2009(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MADHUSUDHANAN P., S/O.UNNIKRISHNAN, 33 YEARS, PAYYAKURISSY HOUSE, PAZHAYANNUR P.O., VADAKKETHARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, (OWNER OF VEHICLE KL-9-C-957). BY ADV. SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, THRISSUR-3. 2. SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PAZHAYANNUR POLICE STAITON, PAZHAYANNUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. RAMACHANDRAN, S/O.KUNJUKUATTAN, KOZHAKOTTIL-HOUSE, PERIBIDARY DESOM, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.20102 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner is the owner in possession of a vehicle bearing registration No.KL-9-C-957. The said vehicle was seized by the 2nd respondent while it was transporting sand. It seems that the transportation was without the authority of a pass. The issue was then considered by the District Collector, who has by Ext.P3, found that the vehicle was used for unauthorised transportation of river sand, contravening the provisions of Kerala Protection of River Banks (Protection and Regulation of removal of sand) Act, 2002. The value of the vehicle was fixed at Rs.1,40,000/-, which was directed to be remitted to the River Management Fund. Ext.P3 order is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. I have perused the averments in the writ petition and Ext.P3 and I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader. 3. The transportation of sand was admittedly without the aid of a pass. But, according to the petitioner, W.P.(C).No.20102 of 2009 :: 2 :: the sand which was seized was not river sand. It is difficult to appreciate or accept this contention. If the sand is not river sand, it must be proved by the petitioner. This could be done by producing the purchase bill and in such cases, documents would be available. No document was produced before the District Collector or before this court. In such circumstances, the finding that the article seized is river sand does not require to be disturbed. If that be so, the transportation of river sand in the vehicle admittedly without a pass issued in that regard under the provisions of the Sand Act, would be illegal and unauthorised. 4. In the circumstances, the finding of the District Collector that the vehicle was indulging in unauthorised transportation of river sand in contravention of the provisions of the Sand Act deserves to be affirmed. I do so. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the vehicle in question is a 1996 model and therefore, the value fixed at Rs.1,40,000/- is on the higher side. W.P.(C).No.20102 of 2009 :: 3 :: 6. I find force in the said submission. This is a matter to be considered by the District Collector afresh. It is open to the petitioner to bring any document showing the value of the vehicle as lesser than Rs.1,40,000/-. Ext.P3 is set aside only to the said limited extent and a revised order relating to the quantification of the value of the vehicle alone shall be passed within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge