IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 20TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 4134 of 2009(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.ABDUL GAFOOR, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.IBRAHIM, PANAKKATTIL HOUSE, P.O.VENGAD, MOORKANAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLATHUR. MR.P.N.SANTHOSH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.4134 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 9th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T Challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P2, an order passed by the District Collector finding that the tipper lorry bearing Regn.No.KL-10/T-2357 was engaged in the unauthorised transportation of river sand. 2. Paragraph 2 of the order itself shows that before the District Collector the petitioner had admitted that the authorities had not issued any pass for transportation of river sand. Although the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that his client had not made such an admission, nothing has been placed on record in support of the contention. 3. Yet another grievance that is raised is that copy of the mahazar was not served on the petitioner. A reading of the impugned order shows that such a complaint was not raised before the District Collector. The petitioner has also not produced copy of the objection, if any, that was filed before the District Collector. In such circumstances, there is no substance in the complaint. WP(C) No.4134/2009 -2- 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the value fixed is disproportionately high, and much more than what was fixed on the previous occasions. On a reading of the order, I notice that twice on earlier occasions, proceedings were initiated against the vehicle and orders were passed. True, the value fixed in those orders were much less than Rs.1,40,000/-, now fixed in the impugned order. 5. However, having regard to the fact that the vehicle in question is 2004 model vehicle, I do not think that there is any perversity in fixing Rs.1,40,000/- as its value. On the whole, I am not satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for interference by this Court. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg