IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2009 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 5389 of 2009(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. SIVARAMAN.K.A., KANNANCHERY HOUSE, CHEMMANTHATTA P.O., PAZHUNNANA, THRISSUR. 2. T.V.PADMANABHAN, KRISHNA NIVAS, ATHALOOR P.O., THAVANUR, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN SMT.PREETHI RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, TIRUR. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. MR.P.N.SANTHOSH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.5389 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 11th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P9 & P10. 2. These are the orders passed by the 2 nd respondent exercising his powers under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Control of Sand Minding Act. Findings have been entered that the vehicles bearing Regn.Nos.KL-08/AG 4919 belonging to the 1 st petitioner and KL-54/302 belonging to the 2 nd petitioner were engaged in the unauthorised transportation of river sand. On that basis, they have been directed to remit Rs.2 lakhs each, being the value of the vehicles to the River Management Fund. 3. Though, the learned counsel for the petitioner raised a contention that seizure mahazar was not served on the petitioners, a reading of the orders show that the fact, that the vehicles were seized from a route, which was not the route indicated in the pass, has been confessed by the petitioners themselves. If that be so, the conclusion that transportation can only be an unauthorised one attracting the provisions of the Act cannot be faulted. If so, the WP(C) No.5389/2009 -2- findings of the District Collector in Exts.P9 & P10 cannot be faulted. Consequently, I am not prepared to invalidate Exts.P9 & P10 on the ground that mahazar was not served. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners then argued on the value of the vehicles that is fixed. According to him, the value fixed is on the higher side. However, the learned Government Pleader, on instructions, informed that the value has been fixed not by the District Collector on his own, but by a competent officer of the Motor Vehicles Department. If a technical expert has fixed the value, and that is the value that has been imposed on the petitioners as per Exts.P9 & P10, this Court will not be justified in upsetting the same, particularly in the absence of any material to conclude that the fixation of the value is irrational or perverse. For these reasons, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg