IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2009 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 38307 of 2003(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- LALITH KUMAR, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. P.R.SADASIVAN NAIR, PUTHEN PURAYIL HOUSE, KUTTOOR P.O., THALAYAR, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.P.HARIDAS RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVALLA. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. P RAVEENDRA BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).38307/03 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P1:-TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN R.P.NO.799/03 DT.17.11.2003. EXT.P2:-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, NO.C9- 32314/2003 DT.1.11.03 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL okb //True Copy// P.A. to Judge C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C)No. 38307 OF 2003 ------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. The challenge in the writ petition against Ext.P2 order, through which the 1st respondent had imposed the penalty of Rs.25,000/- on the petitioner alleging unauthorised transportation of sand, under the provisions of the Kerala Riverbank Protection and Sand Mining Regulation Rules, 2002. According to the petitioner, he is the owner of the lorry engaged in the alleged transportation. But according to him what was transported is only raw material (clay) for using the same in his own brick-kiln. The contention of the petitioner is that the vehicle was taken into custody from a private property owned by another person and the allegation that the vehicle was seen engaged in the illegal transport of river sand in contravention of the statutory provisions, is not true and correct. 2. Earlier the petitioner approached this Court in WP(C). No.29879/2003, which was disposed on 25.9.2003. Subsequently a review petition was filed on the said judgment, which was also disposed of, as per Ext.P1 judgment. This Court gave liberty to the petitioner to raise all contentions before the adjudicating authority, the District Collector. The District W.P.(C).38307/03 2 Collector was directed to consider the matter after referring to all facts and issues raised, through the speaking order. Thereafter the District Collector adjudicated the matter, and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, Ext.P2 order was passed imposing penalty of Rs.25,000/-. The petitioner was directed to remit the balance of Rs.15,000/- after deducting the amount of Rs.10,000/- already paid. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P2 in this writ petition. 3. The 1st respondent in the counter affidavit admitted that the vehicle was seized from a paddy field in Kuttoor village of Thiruvalla Taluk where the illegal sand mining and transportation was going on. The allegation is that there was illegal sand mining and transportation being conducted in the paddy field in violation of the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilization order. The counter affidavit further says that the petitioner is liable to be punished for unauthorised mining of sand. The above facts when considered on the context of the arguments raised by the petitioner that the seizure of the vehicle was not on the basis of transportation of any sand without valid permit and that the seizure was made from a private property, has to be reckoned with. The question raised for consideration is whether there was any violation of the provisions of the Riverbanks Protection and Sand Mining Regulation Act or Rules made thereunder. Illegal mining from a paddy field, which is a W.P.(C).38307/03 3 private property, may amount to violation of the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilization. But the question is whether penalty under the provisions of the Riverbanks Protection and Sand Mining Regulation Act or Rules made thereunder, can be imposed alleging that the vehicle was seen engaged in loading with the illegally mined sand from a private paddy field ? The above aspect need consideration at the hands of the adjudicating authority. 4. In the result, Ext.P2 order is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration and disposal on the basis of the factual aspects and contentions raised by the petitioner. The 1st respondent is directed to pass fresh order, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The amount of Rs.15,000/- already remitted by the petitioner by virtue of interim orders of this Court, will be appropriated in accordance with final decision in the adjudication proceedings. The writ petition is allowed to the above extent. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb