IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2011 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 6690 of 2011(I) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ABOOBACKER @ MUTHU, S/O.MUHAMMED KUTTY, THONIKADAVAN KUNNATH VEEDU, ALIPARAMBA, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERINTHALMANNA-679 322. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. V. MANU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ------------------------- W.P (C) No. 6690 of 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 22nd March, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging the constitutional validity of the relevant provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 - Rules 2002 and also Ext.P1 order passed by the 1st respondent with regard to the seizure and consequential steps to the vehicle bearing registration No.KL10/C-1004 belonging to the petitioner. 2. The sequence of events as narrated in the writ petition shows that the vehicle belonging to the petitioner was seized in respect of the alleged illegal transportation of river sand on 22.12.2009. In the course of further proceedings, the 1st respondent passed Ext.P1 order on 10.6..2010. 3. The case of the petitioner is that, Ext.P1 is contrary to the relevant provisions of law . 4. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 5. With regard to the constitutional validity of the relevant provisions of law, the same has been upheld by a W.P (C) No.6690 of 2011 2 Division Bench of this Court, as per judgment dated 14.3.2011 in W.A No.3005 of 2007 and connected cases. The remaining question as to the sustainability of the consequential steps. It has been observed by the 1st respondent in Ext.P1 that in the course of the proceedings the petitioner turned up before the 1st respondent and conceded the commitment of the offence and requested for release of the vehicle by ordering to realize a small portion of the amount actually payable. It is also observed in Ext.P1 that, absolutely no document was produced before the 1st respondent in support of the transportation of the river sand. It was in the said circumstances, that the matter was considered and finalised by the 1st respondent as per Ext.P1, ordering payment of a sum of Rs.78,000/- payable to the River Management Fund; which in turn is under challenge in this writ petition. 6. Going by the materials on record and after hearing the submissions, this Court does not find any tenable ground to interfere with Ext.P1. More so, when there is no case for the petitioner that the contents of W.P (C) No.6690 of 2011 3 Ext.P1 are wrong and perverse in any manner and further when the petitioner has not produced any valid pass or any other materials before this Court as well. The writ petition fails, interference is declined and the same is dismissed accordingly. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE ma /True copy/ P.A to Judge