IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2010 / 22TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 1012 of 2010(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- OMANAKUTTAN , AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.DIVAKARAN, ANANDABHAVANAM, MUTHUKULAM SOUTH MUTHUKULAM P.O, KAYAMKULAM,MUTHUKULAM VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPALLY TALUK,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT PIN 690 506. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.PRAKASAN SRI.S.RUSSEL SRI.V.R.ARUN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA, PIN 688001. 2. THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA, PIN 688001. 3. THE S.I.OF POLICE, CHERTHALA POLICE STATION,CHERTHALA .P.O ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,PIN 688524. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.1012 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner herein is the owner of a Tata lorry bearing Registration No.KL-6-2975. The said lorry was used for transport of ordinary sand mined from Thanneermukkam to Kayamkulam, according to the petitioner. The vehicle was intercepted by the third respondent on 11.12.2009. It is pointed out that the original of the form P cash memorandum was produced for perusal of the third respondent 2. Proceedings were initiated under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 and Ext.P3 is the copy of the mahazar. 3. The first respondent heard the matter on 24.12.2009. It is the case of the petitioner that his grievances have not been considered by the first respondent while passing Ext.P4 order. Copies of the materials relied on have not been supplied also. It is pointed out that the valuation of the vehicle was also not ascertained and nothing is mentioned in Ext.P4 in regard to the said valuation. W.P.(C) NO.1012 of 2010 2 4. Heard the learned counsel on both sides. It is clear from Ext.P4 that the first respondent has passed the order without proper application of mind. It is clear from a reading of the order that the valuation of the property was not ascertained prior to the passing of the order. The operative portion of the order does not satisfy the requirements of the Act. Hence it requires a fresh hearing after complying with the principles of natural justice. 5. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed. Ext.P4 is quashed. There will be a direction to first respondent to issue fresh notice to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment for hearing and a fresh order will be passed in accordance with law. No costs. (T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.1012 of 2010 3