IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 24280 of 2004(M) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- ASHRAF ALI S/O. MOIDEENKUTTY, AGED 34 YEARS, PAZHUTHIRI HOUSE, MANKADA AMSOM, KOOTTIL, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SURAJ.S RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION, SECETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM. 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERINTHALMANNA. 5. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PERINTHALMANNA. BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER SRI. JOSEPH GEORGE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.24280/2004 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) 2182/204/G.EDN. DTD. 2.6.04 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(c)No.24280 of 2004 --------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P1 order. Ext.P1 is an order issued on 27.07.2004 in a proceeding, under the Protection of Kerala River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act. The allegation was that the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-8P 2552 was used in violation of the provisions of the said Act. On that basis, after issuing notice to the driver of the vehicle and therein, the vehicle was ordered to be confiscated, giving the petitioner's liberty to get the vehicle released on remitting fine of Rs.45,000/-. It is this order, which is under challenge. 2. A reading of this order itself show that before passing the impugned order, notice was not issued to the petitioner, the registered owner of the vehicle. That apart, the District Collector did not have the power to levy fine as ordered in Ext.P1. For both these reasons, Ext.P1 order is unsustainable and is quashed. W.P.(c)No.24280 of 2004 2 2. The Writ Petition is disposed of directing that on receipt of a copy of this judgment, the 5th respondent shall conduct fresh adjudication with notice to the petitioner and pass necessary orders in that regard. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In the meanwhile, the petitioner will retain interim custody of the vehicle as ordered by this Court in the order dated 17.08.2004, which shall be subject to the orders to be pased by the 5th respondent. sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE /True copy/ P.A. to judge ln