IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 18TH JULY 2008 / 27TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 19452 of 2003(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ RAJAMMA GOPINATHAN, W/O. GOPINATHAN, AGED 60 YEARS, MALIYAEKKAL HOUSE, KARIPADOM P.O., THALAYOLAPARAMBU, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOBI JOSE KONDODY RESPONDENTS: ------------- THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.R. SABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 19452 of 2003(N) ORDER ON I.A.NO.5852/2003 DISMISSED. 18.7.2008 SD/- K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT DTD. 13.6.2003 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J ============== W.P.(C).No. 19452 OF 2003 ==================== Dated this the 18th day of July, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner, who is the owner of a country boat bearing CUT.No.VK 7171, has approached this Court challenging Ext.P1 order of the District Collector, Kottayam, dated 13.6.2003. The facts of the case are the following. The boat was seized by the Circle Inspector of Police, Kaduthuruthy on 15.5.2003 on the allegation that it was used for mining sand illegally from Muvattupuzha river. The boat along with another boat was seized and kept in the Panchayath landing place at Vellur. The petitioner submitted a representation before the District Collector stating that the boat was given on rent for two days to Sri. P.N.Pramod and prayed for release of the same. The District Collector heard the matter and came to the conclusion that the boat was used for mining river sand illegally. So, the petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs.12680/- towards the price of the boat and a fine of Rs.2,500/-. Challenging the said order this writ petition is filed. It is contented that the boat was never W.P.(C).No. 19452 OF 2003 2 used for mining river sand. The imposition of fine ordered by the Collector is without jurisdiction. Rule 27 (3) framed under Act 18 of 2001 is ultravires of the constitution. Therefore, this writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: i) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to release the country boat bearing CUT.No.7171/VK to the petitioner without any conditions prescribed in Ext.P1. ii) Declare that Rule 27(3) of Act 18 of 2001 as unconstitutional and strike down the Rule. 2. Whether the boat was actually used for mining river sand or it was kept simply in the landing place is a disputed question which cannot be gone into in this writ petition. A Rule framed under an Act can be challenged only on limited grounds. Those grounds have been succinctly stated by a Division Bench of this Court in Pankajakshi v. George Mathew (1987 (2) KLT 902). No such ground warranting interference with Rule 27 of the Rules framed under the Sand Act has been pleaded in this writ petition. So this Court cannot go into the validity of the Rule. Therefore, the challenge against the Rule has to be repelled. But the contention of the petitioner that the Collector W.P.(C).No. 19452 OF 2003 3 has no power to impose fine has to be upheld. Only a competent court can do that. Therefore, the imposition of fine of Rs.2,500/- is set aside. The impugned order Ext.P1 to the extent it directs the deposit of Rs.12,680/-, which is the value of the boat is upheld. The writ petition is disposed of as above. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE bkn/-