IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2009 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 19306 of 2007(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- P.M.SANKARANARAYANAN, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAN, PAZHAYAMADATHIL HOUSE, KADAMPUZHA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM DIST. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE/ STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KUTTIPPURAM POLICE STATION, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.SMITHA SUKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC : 19306/07 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM DATED 18.6.07, NO.P5-20190/07. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF VEHCILE NO.KL.10J-1989. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No. 19306 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the owner of a lorry which has been seized by the respondents under the provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Banks & Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001, on allegations of transportation of river sand illegally. The proceedings ended in Ext.P1 order, whereby the District Collector directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.70,000/- towards the value of the vehicle in lieu of confiscation and also a fine of Rs.25,000/-. Petitioner is challenging that order. 2. According to the petitioner, since the only finding in Ext.P1 is that the petitioner has contravened Section 12(6) of the Kerala Protection of River Banks & Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. No confiscation could have been ordered in so far as Section 23, which relates to confiscation of vehicles, authorises such confiscation only when the vehicle is used for transportation of the river sand illegally and not otherwise. According to the petitioner, since the finding is only regarding the violation of Section 12(6), no WPC : 19306/07 -:2:- confiscation could have been ordered. Petitioner further contends that this Court has in the decision of Sanjayan v. Tahsildar [2007(4) KLT 597] decided that the District Collector does not have power to impose fine, which power exclusively rests with the Magistrate who tries an offence under the Act. Petitioner therefore submits that Ext.P1 is against the provisions of the Act and therefore liable to be quashed. 3. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader. 4. Section 12(6) reads thus: “12. General conditions for the sand removal operations in a Kadavu:- xxxxx (6) The vehicle for loading sand shall be parked at a distance of at least 25 metres from the river bank, and no vehicle shall be brought to the river bank for loading.” 5. Section 23 reads thus: “23. Confiscation of vehicles:- Whoever transports sand without complying with the provisions of this Act shall be liable to be punished and the vehicle used for the transportation is liable for seizure by the Police or Revenue Officials.” 6. From Section 23 it would appear that, the confiscation of the vehicle is only when a person transports sand without complying with WPC : 19306/07 -:3:- the provisions of this Act. Therefore, perhaps if the violation is only Section 12(6), no confiscation as such can be made. But, I must note that under Rule 22 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks & Regulation of Removal of Sand Rules, 2002 read with Rules 27 & 28 of the Act, penalty imposed under the Act and Rules forms part of the River Management Fund. In Ext.P1 it is stated that, at the time of hearing the petitioner had submitted that the vehicle was taken to the river and the vehicle was impeded in the mud. That being so, clearly petitioner had violated Section 12(6). Although Section 12(6) is mentioned in Ext.P1, I am not satisfied that, that was the only violation which the petitioner was found guilty of. What is found therein is that petitioner has used the vehicle for transportation of river sand violating Section 12(6). Further since the petitioner has brought the vehicle to the river only for transportation of sand the violation under Section 12(6) is also part of the offence of transportation of sand. As such, I am not satisfied that the petitioner's contention that the only violation complained of in Ext.P1 is violation of Section 12(6). That being so, I do not find merit in the contention of the petitioner that the vehicle cannot be confiscated. WPC : 19306/07 -:4:- That being so, I do not find any infirmity in the order directing confiscation. But there is merit in the contention of the petitioner that the District Collector does not have power to impose fine in view of the decision in Sanjayan's case(supra). Taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the amount in lieu of confiscation should be reduced to Rs.40,000/-, while quashing the imposition of fine of Rs.25,000/-. Ordered accordingly. If the petitioner has already paid the amount of Rs.25,000/- as per the interim order in this writ petition, the balance shall be paid by the petitioner within two weeks from today, failing which the respondents are free to take coercive proceedings for recovery of the same in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ttb