IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2010 / 16TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20953 of 2010(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.V.ANUMOD, S/O.VIJAYAN, AGED 25 YEARS, PANIKKAVEETTIL HOUSE, PANAVALLY P.O., CHERTHALA - 688 566. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE MATHEW SRI.DIPU JAMES SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINING AND GEOLOGY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA. 4. THE MINERAL REVENUE INSPECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF MINING & GEOLOGY, DISTRICT OFFICE, KOTTAYAM. 5. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POOCHAKKAL, CHERTHALA. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P. NARAYANAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 20953 of 2010 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 7th day of July, 2010. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is challenging Ext. P5 order passed by the 3rd respondent in exercise of powers of the 2nd respondent under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. By that order, on a finding that the petitioner has used his vehicle for unauthorized transportation of river sand, in violation of the Act and Rules, the petitioner has been directed to pay an amount of Rs. 95,000/- as value of the vehicle towards River Management Fund. The petitioner's contention is that the transport was accompanied by Ext. P2 pass. Therefore, there was no reason to suspect any illegal transport of river sand. He also submits that the value fixed is exorbitant and unreasonable. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. From a reading of Ext. P5, it does not appear that the petitioner has produced Ext. P2 before the District Collector. Ext. P5 specifically states that at the time of seizure also, no pass was produced. Ext. P2 cash memorandum is in respect of ordinary sand and not river sand. The finding in Ext. P5 is that the sand was river sand. The learned Government Pleader further points out that Ext. P2 cannot be relied upon because it has not been issued in accordance with provisions of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concessions Rules since it has to be issued by the Geologist with his seal and signature. Further, in Ext. P2, the name of the person who purchased the sand is shown as Dennis. At no stage of the proceedings from the date of seizure, the petitioner has ever informed anybody that he was taking the sand for Mr. Dennis. It is not even so stated in the writ petition. Further, in the synopsis of the writ petition, the petitioner specifically states that the petitioner was not able to produce Ext. P2 before the respondents and thus the petitioner was prevented from convincing W.P.C. No. 20953/2010. -: 2 :- the respondents about the case and Ext. P2. On the other hand, in the body of the writ petition, he states that even though Ext. P2 was shown immediately, the 5th respondent was not even inclined to verify the same and release the vehicle. That shows the lack of bona fides in the contentions of the petitioner. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept the contentions of the petitioner. 4. As far as the value is concerned, it is specifically stated that the value has been fixed by the Joint R.T.O as per report dated 29-5- 2010 submitted by him. The Joint R.T.O is a competent officer to value the vehicle. The petitioner has not produced any document whatsoever to show that the valuation so made is exorbitant or unreasonable. In the above circumstances I do not find any merit in any of the contentions of the petitioner and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE.