IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2010 / 29TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 19743 of 2010(P) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- VIJESH, S/O.KUNHIMON, CHOZHIYATTIL HOUSE, PANAMPAD, PURANGU, PONNANI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PONNANI POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. DILEEP MOHAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/10/2010, ALONG WITH W.P.(C). NO.19890 OF 2010 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.19743/2010-P: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE R.1. DTD. 27/05/2010 AS NO. P.8-58018/09. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER IN W.A. NO. 999/2010 DTD. 18/06/2010 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) Nos.19743 (P), 19890 (I), 20022 (C) & 20045 (E) of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 21st day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T In these writ petitions, challenge is against the final orders passed by the District Collector exercising his powers under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. 2. Contention raised by the petitioners is mainly two fold. One is that orders have been passed by the ADM and not by the District Collector. However, this contention is answered by the respondents by pointing out that at that relevant point of time, the ADM was holding charge as the District Collector of Malappuram District. In view of the submission made by the learned Government Pleader, which is not controverted by any material, this contention raised by the petitioners deserves to be rejected. 3. In so far as the other contention raised by the petitioners that the orders are passed in a mechanical manner and without any enquiry, is concerned, orders itself show that these orders were WP(C) No.19743, 19890, 20022 & 20045 of 2010 -2- passed on the basis of the admission of the guilt made by the respective petitioners. When the fact of admission of guilt recorded in the impugned orders was disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader was directed to produce materials in support of the said findings. Accordingly, statements made by the petitioners have been made available by the learned Government Pleader, which show that they in fact have given statements admitting the guilt. The only argument raised by the petitioners in answer to this findings is that the petitioners were ignorant of the consequences of the admission, which in my view, is only to be rejected. Therefore, the orders having been passed on admitted facts, I do not find any substance to accept the case of the petitioners that the orders have been passed mechanically and without any enquiry. Therefore, these writ petitions are only to be dismissed and I do so. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg