IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH MAY 2010 / 30TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 14581 of 2010(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MUHAMMED JAMSHEER, S/O. ABDUPPA, KANKALATH HOUSE, MOORKKANAD P.O., MALAPPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR, KOLATHUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 14581 of 2010 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 20th day of May, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext. P1 order of the 1st respondent- District Collector passed under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 and the Rules thereunder, by which on a finding that the petitioner has unauthorisedly transported river sand an amount of Rs. 2,45,000/- being the value of the vehicle in which the sand was being transported was directed to be paid towards River Management Fund. According to the petitioner, the findings regarding guilt is unsupported by evidence and he has also not been given an opportunity to controvert the seizure mahazar by summoning the witnesses to the mahazar. He also disputes the valuation of the vehicle. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. In Ext. P1 order, it is specifically stated that at the time of hearing, the petitioner himself admitted that he was transporting river sand unauthorisedly without any permission or documents. The petitioner has not stated in the writ petition that that finding is wrong. That being so, there is no point in the petitioner now turning around and challenging the finding of guilt in Ext. P1 order. 4. As far as the valuation is concerned, the vehicle involved is a 2005 model tipper lorry, which has been valued by the Joint R.T.O, Perinthalmanna, who is a competent officer to value the vehicle. He has fixed the value of the vehicle as Rs. 2,45,000/-. The petitioner could not satisfy this Court that such valuation is in any way excessive or wrong. W.P.C. No. 14581/2010 -: 2 :- In the above circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in Ext. P1 order. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE.