IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 18TH MAY 2010 / 28TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 14710 of 2010(K) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O. PRAKASAN, AGED 28 YEARS, PAZHUKUNNATH HOUSE,KODUNGALLUR P.O, METHALA VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT (OWNER OF MINI LORRY BEARING REGISTRATION NO:KDE 1544). BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KODUNGALLUR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P. NARAYANAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/05/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 14710 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext.P1 order passed by the 2nd respondent-District Collector under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.70,000/- being the value of the vehicle involved in unauthorized transportation of river sand to the River Management Fund. Petitioner now contends that he is not guilty of any violation under the Act and therefore the petitioner could not have been made liable to pay amounts to the River Management Fund. The petitioner further submits that he was not heard before passing Ext.P1 order. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. In Ext.P1, the District Collector has stated thus: “As per the petition submitted read as 2nd paper above by Sri. Unikrishnan, the owner of the vehicle submits that the transportation of river sand was done without any valid pass W.P.(C)No. 14710 of 2010 -2- and requests the District Collector to release the vehicle by imposing a nominal fine. The party was heard on 10.03.2010 after proper notice. At the time of hearing, the party has not produced any valid documents for supporting the act of transportation of river sand.” 3. Counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the fact that the petitioner has already filed a written submission admitting the illegal transportation and seeking release of the vehicle by imposing a nominal fine. Having admitted the violation, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to the discretionary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Since the order is passed in strict compliance Rule 27 (3) of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 there is no infirmity in Ext.P1 order. Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE shg/