IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 27TH MARCH 2009 / 6TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 10032 of 2009(Y) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. SABEER,SABI MANSHION,MAMAM, KIZHUVILAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. GOPAKUMAR, UTHRAM BHAVAN, PARAYATHU KONAM, KIZHUVILAM VILLAGE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.RAJESH SMT.A.K.PREETHA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE THAHSILDAR, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER KIZHUVILAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 5. THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE FEDERAL BANK LTD ATTINGAL BRANCH. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 10032 OF 2009 (Y) ===================== Dated this the 27th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P10, an order passed by the 1st respondent finding that the vehicle KL-01- U/648 belonging to the 1st petitioner has been used for the unauthorised transportation of river sand and directing realisation of Rs.30,000/-. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the second petitioner had purchased 35loads of river sand and that the same was being sold as and when purchase order is placed. It is stated that on one occasion, when sand was loaded and while they were awaiting for the pass, squad from the Collector's Office inspected and registered a case against the petitioners and Ext.P4 mahazar was prepared. It is stated that there is no justification for the proceedings initiated and that at any rate, none of their contentions in this behalf have been considered in Ext.P10. 2. I have gone through Ext.P10. A reading of Ext.P10 order shows that apart from stating that the parties were heard and that no documents were produced by the petitioners, the 1st respondent has not adverted to the contentions raised by the WPC 10032/09 :2 : parties. Therefore, Ext.P10 has to be held as an order passed without duly adverting to the contentions raised and for that reason, I set aside Ext.P10. 3. It is directed that the 1st respondent shall issue notice to the petitioners, hear them and pass orders thereon duly adverting to the contentions and in the light of the law as laid down by this Court in Subramanian v. State of Kerala (2009 (1) KLT 77). Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp