IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 2ND JANUARY 2009 / 12TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 37712 of 2008(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ VISWANATHAN.K, S/O.MUNDI, KANHIRAKNAN HOUSE, MELMURI-PO, MALAPPURAM (OWNER OF VEHICLE BEARING REG.NO:KL-08-AD/8747) BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.P.VENUGOPAL (1086/92) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,MALAPPURAM DIST. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 37712 OF 2008 (M) ==================== Dated this the 2nd day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P5, an order passed by the 2nd respondent, finding that the petitioner's truck KL-08/AD 8747 was involved in the unauthorised transportation of river sand in violation of the provisions contained in the Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Rules, 2002. It is seen that the finding has been arrived at on the basis of the conclusion that utilizing one pass, the lorry was used for transportation of river sand on different occasions. A reading of the impugned order does not disclose the basis of such a conclusion. I was also referred to the mahazar which does not support the said finding. However, as no materials are disclosed in the impugned order, I must necessarily hold that the impugned order has been passed without application of mind or adverting to relevant matters. 2. In that view of the matter, Ext.P5 cannot be sustained and for that reason, the said order will stand set aside. The 2nd respondent shall reconsider the matter with notice to the petitioner adverting to the contentions raised. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. WPC 37712/08 :2 : 3. In the meantime, it will be open to the petitioner to move the 2nd respondent for interim custody of the vehicle, in which case, the 2nd respondent shall pass appropriate orders for its release, imposing sufficient conditions to take care of the interest of the respondents also. Petitioner may produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp