IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 11TH OCTOBER 2011 / 19TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 2669 of 2005(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- VALSAMMA JOSEPH, AGED 51, W/O. JOSEPH, KARIMADAM HOUSE, KADUMENI P.O., KASARAGOD DIST. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD. 3. SUB COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD. 4. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, HOSDURG POLICE STATION. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.R. SABU FOR R1 AND R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 2669/2005 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 19.01.2005. EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 20.01.2005. EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 20.01.2005. EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19.01.2005 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE CHIEF SECRETARY. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J ----------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 2669 OF 2005 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of October, 2011. JUDGMENT The vehicle bearing No. KL-14/A-3373 belonging to the petitioner was intercepted by the 3rd respondent Sub Collector on 17.01.2005, alleging illegal transportation of river sand, which culminated in Ext.P1 order, whereby the petitioner was given liberty to have the vehicle redeemed on payment of a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the River Management Fund; lest further coercive proceedings should follow to have the vehicle sold in public auction. Pursuant to the above order, the petitioner remitted the said amount, whereby the vehicle was ordered to be released to the petitioner as borne by Ext.P3 communication sent by the concerned RDO to the Sub Inspector of Police, Hosdurg Police station. It was after redeeming the vehicle, that the petitioner approached this Court by filing the above writ Petition, stating that Ext.P1 order passed by the second respondent is not correct or sustainable on various grounds. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well 2 WP(C) No. 2669/2005 as the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents in detail. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the second respondent does not have any power to impose 'fine', as the power to impose fine is vested only with a Court of law. But a mere reference made to Section 20 in Ext.P1, does not change the character of the amount ordered to be satisfied as per Ext.P1, which is towards the liability to be effected to the River Management Fund so as to redeem the vehicle in place of further steps. It was accordingly, that the said amount was remitted to the River Management Fund, when the vehicle was ordered to be released as per Ext.P3. 4. Going by the materials on record, the amount ordered to be paid and collected by the second respondent is to the River Management Fund and never as 'fine'. The relevant provisions of the statute clearly enable the revenue authorities, who are vested with the power of confiscation to order redemption on the vehicle, on satisfaction of the amount fixed as equal to the value of the vehicle, payable to the River Management Fund. It was giving effect to the said provision, that the second respondent 3 WP(C) No. 2669/2005 considered the matter and permitted the petitioner to satisfy a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the River Management Fund, which in turn is satisfied by the petitioner. The idea and understanding of the petitioner as to the alleged imposition of 'fine' as per Ext.P1 and P3 are quite wrong and unfounded; as no such 'fine' has been imposed as per Ext.P1. This Court finds no reason to interfere. The Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc