IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 30TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 5193 of 2009(T) ------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. KATTIRI MOIDEENKUTTY HAJI S/O.KAMMUNNI, AGED 51, POOMANNA, PO.OLAKARA, TIRURANGADI VIA.,MALAPPURAM. 2. RAMLA MOIDEENKUTTY HAJI, W/O.KATTIRI MOIDEENKUTTY HAJI, AGED 45, POOMANNA.PO., OLAKARA, TIRURANGADI VIA., MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.HARISH R. MENON SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DT. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 5193 OF 2009 (T) ==================== Dated this the 19th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T The first petitioner is the registered owner of KL-11 7705 (1993 model Tata lorry) and KL-01/L.8829 (1998 model Mahindra Nissan Mini Lorry). The second petitioner is the registered owner of KL-10/Z.2600 (2006 model Mahindra Tipper Mini Lorry). 2. These lorries were seized on 16/10/2006. Ext.P5 series are the mahazars prepared by the Village Officer, Thenhipalam at the time of the seizures. Proceedings were initiated on the allegation that the vehicles were used for the unauthorised transportation of river sand in violation of the provisions contained under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 . Finally by Ext.P7 order, the District Collector imposed a fine of Rs.50,000/- each. 3. Ext.P7 order was challenged before this court in WP(C) No.27919/06 and the writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 25/7/2008 quashing Ext.P7 on the ground that there has not been any proper consideration of the matter as is expected of a quasi judicial authority. Accordingly, the respondent was directed to reconsider the matter. WPC 5193/09 :2 : 4. The matter was reconsidered with opportunity to the petitioners and Ext.P8 is the order that is now passed. In Ext.P8, again the findings have been entered against the petitioners and on that basis, the petitioners have been directed to remit the value of the vehicles towards the River Management Fund. It is this order which is now under challenge. 5. The fact that the vehicles were engaged in the transportation of river sand is not in dispute. However, learned counsel for the petitioners assert that the transportation was on the strength of Ext.P4 series of passes and therefore, there is no justification for the proceedings . In so far as this contention of the counsel is concerned, I must at the outset say, referring to Ext.P5 series of mahazars prepared by the Village Officer, that these show that at the time of seizure, no passes were available. That apart, the availability of passes was not an issue that was canvassed before the respondent and the respondent on facts, found that there was no pass and that the passes produced were subsequently obtained from the Panchayat Office. On facts, I have no contrary material to conclude otherwise. 6. Learned counsel then contended that on the previous WPC 5193/09 :3 : occasion, in Ext.P7, Rs.50,000/- each alone was levied and this time higher amounts are ordered to be remitted. A reading of Ext.P7 shows that what was imposed on the earlier occasion was fine for which the Collector does not have the power and what is now ordered to be paid in Ext.P8 is the value of the vehicle. As already noticed, the vehicles are of 1993, 1998 and 2006 models. Considering the age of the vehicles, I have no reason to think that the value fixed is irrational warranting interference. 7. Counsel then made reference to Ext.P6, an interim order passed by this Court in WP(C) No.27488/06 where orders were passed directing consideration of the application made by the petitioners for release of the vehicle. The observations made are based on the pleadings in the writ petition at the admission stage and therefore cannot fetter the power that is available to the respondent under the provisions of the Act. 8. On the whole, I am not satisfied that the petitioners have made out a case for interference. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp