IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 16TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1846 of 2009(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ABDULSALAM.P.T, S/O. MOHAMMED, PARAPIL HOUSE, CHERUVADY, MAVOOR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE ASSISTANT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MAVOOR POLICE STATION, MAVOOR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ----------------------- W.P.(C).No. 1846 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of February, 2009. JUDGMENT Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P3. 2. Ext.P3 is an order passed by the first respondent, finding that the Vehicle bearing registration No.KL- 10F3042 was engaged in the transportation of river sand without any pass. The main contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that the enquiry that preceeded Ext.P3 was conducted by the Assistant Collector and not the District Collector. Thereupon the case was adjourned with a direction to the Government Pleader to get instruction in the matter. Government Pleader on instructions submits that the vehicle in question was seized by the Assistant Collector and that he completed the enquiry. It is also stated that, it is on the basis of the report submitted and on a perusal of /2/ the records that Ext.P3 order was passed by the District Collector . It is therefore obvious that the enquiry was not conducted by the District Collector who passed Ext.P3. It is clearly erroneous and for that reason itself Ext.P3 deserves to be set aside and I do so, The first respondent is directed to issue notice to the petitioner and with an opportunity of hearing to him, conduct necessary enquiry and pass orders in this matter, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within one month from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. If the petitioner desires for the interim custody of the vehicle, it is upon him to make an application to the first respondent in that behalf. If such an application is received, the first respondent shall pass necessary orders without any delay. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ /2/