IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2009 / 16TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 14409 of 2008(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.J.RAMA BHAI,VADAKKEMANALELIL VEEDU, MATHOOR P.O,THUMPAMON,CHENNEERKARA. BY ADV. SRI.SALIM V.S. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE TAHASILDAR,KOZHENCHERY TALUK, KOZHENCHERY. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,CHENEERKARA VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERY. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,PATHANAMTHITTA. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.DILIP MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). No. 14409/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1. COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD.2.2.08 OF R1. Sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.14409 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 7th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging Ext.P1 order, whereby he has been directed to pay the value of the sand, royalty and fine for unauthorisedly mining sand from the Achankovil river. The petitioner's contention is that as is clear from Ext.P1, proceedings have been initiated under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. The said order has been passed by the Tahsildar, Kozhenchery. According to the petitioner, the Tahsidlar has no power under the said Act to pass an order like Ext.P1. He further submits that he was not afforded an opportunity of being heard before passing Ext.P1. The petitioner therefore, seeks the following reliefs: “i) to call for the records leading to Exhibit P1. ii) to issue a writ of certiorari or any appropriate writ, order quashing Ext.P1. iii) to declare that the 1st respondent is not empowered to pass Exhibit P1 under the provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Bank and Regulation of Removal of Sand act, 2001. iii) Such other reliefs that this Hon'ble Court may deed fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 2. As far as the opportunity of being heard is concerned, the order itself says that the petitioner appeared, but did not file any objections. Therefore, I do not find any merit in that contention. Regarding the jurisdiction, in the counter affidavit, it is specifically w.p.c.14409/08 2 stated that although, mistakenly, the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act has been mentioned in the order, the order has been passed under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act as is clear from the fact that the number of the proceedings in Ext.P1 is L.C. 2/08. 3. After arguing for some time, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since now that the respondents contend that Ext.P1 order has been passed under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw this writ petition without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to avail of his statutory remedies against Ext.P1. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to avail of statutory remedies against Ext.P1 under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge