IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2010 / 20TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 31262 of 2010(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- VINOD.V.T., AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.A.K.THANKAPPAN, VANDANATHARA HOUSE, PUNNATHURA EAST P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOBI JOSE KONDODY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM-686 002. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AYARKUNNAM POLICE STATION, AYARKUNNAM (PO), KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. THE GEOLOGIST, MINING & GEOLOGY DISTRICT OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, COLLECTORATE P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 002. 4. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LR), COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM-686 002. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P. NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.31262 OF 2010(G) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P7 final order passed by the District Collector exercising his powers under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act. By this order it has been held that the lorry bearing registration No.KL-5 Y 4358 belonging to the petitioner was used for unauthorized transportation of river sand. On that basis the vehicle is held to be liable for confiscation and the petitioner has been given liberty to redeem the same by remitting the value of the vehicle. 2. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the District Collector has concluded the issue mainly relying on the report of the Geologist, a copy of which is Ext.P6. It is contended that Ext.P6 is not a conclusive report and therefore the petitioner had represented to sent sample of the sand for examination by the Director of Mining and Geology. It is stated that without such examination the District Collector ought not have decided the issue. It is also contended by the counsel for WPC.No.31262 /2010 :2 : the petitioner that the sand in question was purchased from a dealer who has licence to deal in river sand. For that reason also the order of confiscation is illegal 3. In so far as the report of the Geologist relied on by the District Collector is concerned, a reading of Ext.P6 report shows, it was found that the sand in question is a mixture of river sand and sand manufactured by washing of weathered rock. Thus presence of river sand is evident from the report in question. Further examination by the Director of Mining and Geology was recommended only for determining the ratio of river sand and not for determining the presence of the river sand. Therefore the report concludes the presence of the river sand. If so, there was no reason to send the sample for further analysis. Hence acceptance of Ext.P6 and the decision taken by the District collector as per Ext.P7 relying on Ext.P6 cannot be faulted. 4. In so far as the contention of the petitioner that the sand in question was purchased from a dealer who had stocked river sand and that therefore the petitioner could not have been faulted is concerned, in the absence of any material to substantiate the plea, the said contention cannot be accepted. WPC.No.31262 /2010 :3 : That apart if the river sand was the material that the petitioner had purchased there is absolutely no explanation about the presence of sand manufactured by washing of weathered rock in the lorry in question. 5. Therefore Ext.P7 order passed by the District Collector is to be upheld and I do so. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/