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. 3845 of 2009(G) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- P.T.VINODKUMAR S/O.NARAYANAN, PALAKKATHODY HOUSE,INDIANOOR PO KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM (DT) BY ADV. SRI.T.K.AJITH KUMAR SRI.P.VINODKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, THIRURNAGADI TALUK THIRURANGADI P.O. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR,THIRURANAGADI TALUK THIRURANAGADI P.O. 4. THE SECRETARY, OTHUKKUNGAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, OTHUKKUNGAL PO, MALAPPURAM DT. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH 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. 3845 OF 2009 (G) ==================== Dated this the 5th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P6, an order passed by the 1st respondent, concluding that the petitioner's vehicle KL- 10/U.8831 was used for the transportation of river sand without a valid pass. It is also found that it was proved that the sand in question was not loaded from Mattathoorangadi kadavu mentioned in the pass produced by the petitioner. 2. In so far as the issue regarding the pass is concerned, the finding is that the time of departure from the kadavu is not mentioned in the pass. This finding is factually correct as is seen from Ext.P1 pass itself. However, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Ext.P4 letter of the Tahsildar dated 4/9/08 and submits that the same was a lapse of the Secretary of the Panchayat and that the petitioner should not be penalised for such lapse. 3. In my view, even if such contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is found to be correct, still Ext.P6 order passed by the District Collector deserves to be upheld. This is for the reason that the District Collector has found in Ext.P6 that the sand in question was not WPC 3845/09 :2 : loaded from Mattathoorangadi kadavu mentioned in the pass. This conclusion of the District Collector has been arrived at on the basis of the statement made by the Tahsildar before him. 4. Ext.P1 pass shows that the kadavu from which the sand is to be loaded is Mattathoorangadi kadavu. The Tahsildar in Ext.P4 also stated that the sand in question was not loaded from the said kadavu and this finding has been accepted by the District Collector. Petitioner has not produced anything to conclude to the contrary. If that be so, I must accept the conclusion of the District Collector that the river sand in question seized from the lorry belonging to the petitioner was collected from unauthorised sources. For that reason itself, Ext.P6 deserves to be upheld and I do so. 5. The vehicle in question is a 2004 model vehicle. The value fixed is only Rs.1,50,000/-. Having regard to the nature of the vehicle, I do not think, the value fixed is disproportionate or perverse warranting interference. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp