IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 30TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 271 of 2009(G) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.K. BASHEER, S/O. USMAN, PERALI, KOONANGATTIL, PULAMANTHOLE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.DILIP MOHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PERINTHALMANNA. 3. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), TALUK OFFICE, PERINTHALMANNA. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ----------------------- W.P.(C).No.271 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of February, 2009. JUDGMENT Exts.P2 order and Ext.P3 revenue recovery notice are under challenge. Ext.P2 order is passed by the first respondent exercising his powers under the Kerala Protection of Revier Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, finding that the Vehicle bearing registration No.KL-10/C 2694 was involved in the unauthorized transportation of the river sand and on that basis petitioner has been ordered to remit Rs.75,000/- being the value of the vehicle. The value of the vehicle towards the River Management Fund was not remitted and thereupon recovery proceedings were initiated by Ext.P3. It is challenging Exts.P2 and P3 that the writ Petition is filed. 2. Ext.P2 shows that the order was passed on 17.4.2007 and the petitioner sought to explain the delay in WP(c).No.271/09 2 challenging Ext.P2 by contending that the order was received only now. In view of this submission the case was adjourned with a direction to the Government Pleader to obtain instruction as to whether Ext.P2 was served on the petitioner soon after it was passed. However, the learned Government Pleader could not produce any material to substantiate that the order was served on the petitioner any time before. If that be so I cannot held the petitioner guilty of any laches. In view of this I proceed to examine the validity of Ext.P2. 3. The powers of the District Collector while discharging the duties under the Act referred to above is that of a quasi judicial authority and the question is whether in passing Ext.P2 the first respondent has properly exercised the aforesaid power. A reading of Ext.P2 shows that reliance has been placed on the Mahazar and no other issue has been considered for finding the petitioner guilty. Therefore Ext.P2 cannot be upheld as it is bad for non consideration of relevant matters and hence Exts.P2 is quashed and as a consequence WP(c).No.271/09 3 thereof Ext.P3 will stand quashed. The first respondent is directed to reconsider the matter with notice to the petitioner and pass orders as expeditiously as possible. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before the first respondent for compliance. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.271/09 4