IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2010 / 18TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 15873 of 2010(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- AHAMMED KABEER, S/O.MUHAMMED, RESIDING AT PAPPATTIL HOUSE, VENGARA, KANNADIPADI P.O., MALAPPURAM-676 304. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.P.S.APPU SRI.C.A.ANOOP RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VENGARA, MALAPPURAM. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 15873 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 8th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T Heard both sides. 2. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P6 final order passed by the District Collector under the the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act. By the same, on a finding that the vehicle in question was used for transporting river sand in violation of the provisions of the Act and Rules, the petitioner has been directed to pay an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- being the value of the vehicle towards the river management fund. The allegation against the petitioner is that the vehicle was seized when the sand was being unloaded at the destination. Admittedly, the petitioner had a pass for transport of river sand. It was issued at 09.15 a.m. on 29.1.2010, with a time limit of 2 hours. The seizure was at 11.30 on the same day, admittedly while the sand was being unloaded. Of course the petitioner has raised a contention before the District Collector that the seizure was while the vehicle was returning after unloading the sand, which was covered by a valid pass. But not even that contention is considered in Ext.P6. Instead, on an omnibus finding by him to the effect that in view of the seizure mahazar and the documents produced by the petitioner, the transport was in violation of the Act and Rules, the District Collector has found the petitioner liable to pay the said 2 amount. I am of opinion that this consideration by the District Collector is not at all a legal one. When admittedly the seizure was while unloading the sand, there should be a definite finding as to whether the transport was in violation of the Act. Between the seizure and the time limit there was only 15 minutes' difference. It need not always be that after transport, if the same is legal, unloading should also be within the time limit prescribed. Therefore, there should be a specific finding that the vehicle reached the destination after the period prescribed in the pass. Such a consideration and finding is totally absent in Ext.P6 order. Therefore, I am of opinion that Ext.P6 order is not a speaking order considering all aspects of the matter. Accordingly, Ext.P6 is quashed. The District Collector is directed to reconsider the matter in the light of the observations made hereinbefore and pass fresh orders as expeditiously as possible. In the meanwhile, the petitioner shall be given interim custody of the vehicle on his execution of a bond with two solvent sureties for an amount of Rs.4,50,000/-. The petitioner shall not alienate or otherwise part with possession of the vehicle. The petitioner shall also keep the vehicle in good condition. The same shall be produced as and when directed by the District Collector to do so. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge 3