IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2010 / 15TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 14021 of 2010(C) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ P. SASIDHARAN, S/O. BALAKURUP, RESIDING AT 3/435, MODOM POYIL, MANGATTIDAM, P.O. NIRMALAGIRI, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, THALASSDRY POLICE STATION, THALASSERY. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.A. ASIF THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.14021/2010 C APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE VEHICLE BEARING NO.KL-17/F-2140. P2: COPY OF THE GOODS CARRIAGE PERMIT. P3: COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT DTD. 10/12/09. P4: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.L3/09/51096/13 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P5: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY PETITIONER FOR INTERIM RELEASE BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 15/01/2010. P6: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY PETITIONER FOR EXAMINATION BY GEOLOGIST. P7: COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WP 4137/10 DTD. 15/02/2010. P8: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT NO.L3/09/51096/13 DTD. 20/03/2010. P9: COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE GEOLOGIST DTD. 12/03/2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE KSS S.SIRI JAGAN, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No. 14021 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 6th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges Ext.P8 order passed by the District Collector, Kannur under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of removal of sand Act, 2001. By that order, the District Collector found that the petitioner was transporting river sand in the vehicle in question in violation of the Act and Rules without a valid pass and therefore, directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.7.5 lakhs towards value of the vehicle. 2. The petitioner's contention is that he had not transported river sand in violation of the Act and Rules. He also submits that he had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(C). No. 4137 of 2010 against Ext.P4 order originally passed by the District Collector and by Ext.P.P7 judgment, this Court had directed reconsideration of the matter and in Ext.P.P8 the matter has not been considered 2 in the right perspective. The petitioner also challenges the fixation of the value of the vehicle, which, according to him, is exorbitant and unreasonable. 3. The learned Government Pleader submits that as is clear from Ext.P8, which runs into nine pages, the District Collector has elaborately considered every aspect of the matter, as directed in the earlier judgment. He submits that admittedly the transport of the sand was not accompanied by any valid pass. He points out that even Ext.P3 produced by the petitioner for payment of amounts in the Commercial Tax Check Post, Adhur the vehicle number mentioned is not the number of the vehicle seized. He submits that in so far as it is proved that the sand is river sand, it is for the petitioner to prove that he had transported the same with a valid pass. He also submits that every transport of sand should be accompanied by a pass. Admittedly, no pass accompanied the transport in question. Therefore, according to the learned Government Pleader, Ext.P.8 order is perfectly valid and proper. The learned Government 3 Pleader also points out that the value of the vehicle has been fixed after obtaining a valuation report from the Motor Vehicles Inspector, Thalassery, who is a competent officer to value the vehicle. 4. I have considered the rival contentions. The petitioner has not produced any document either before the District Collector or before this Court to prove that the transport of the sand is valid. Even Ext.P3 receipt for payment of money at the check post is in respect of another vehicle. The petitioner now seeks to explain the same by saying that there was a subsequent change of vehicle, which cannot be accepted in the absence of any material in support of the same. Admittedly, the sand was not accompanied by any pas as required under law. Now the petitioner tries to contend that the sand was transported from Banglore. No evidence whatsoever is forthcoming in support of the said contention. On a reading of Ext.P8, I find that the District Collector has elaborately considered every contention of the petitioner. I do not find any reason 4 to interfere with the findings of fact entered in Ext.P8 on the basis of evidence on record. I am unable to find that the findings are in any way perverse or unsustainable. 5. As far as the valuation of the vehicle is concerned, the same was fixed after obtaining valuation report from a competent officer, namely, the Motor Vehicle Inspector, Thalassery. In respect of the contention of the petitioner regarding the valuation also the petitioner has not produced any document to show that the valuation fixed is in any way exorbitant. 6. In view of the above findings, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE. mn.