IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 8TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 30065 of 2010 (G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SALIM, S/O.HYDROSE, PULUKKOTTIL HOUSE, CHEROOR, VENGARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.BABU S. NAIR SRI.K.RAKESH RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VENGARA POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.30065 of 2010 (G) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 30th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T Challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P5 order dated 25/05/2010 issued by the District Collector exercising his powers under the provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. 2. A reading of this order shows that the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-55 B 8593 belonging to the petitioner was engaged for unauthorised transportation of river sand, and on that basis, the vehicle is ordered to be confiscated and the petitioner is given freedom to redeem it. Ext.P5 order is dated 25/05/2010, and there is absolutely no explanation forthcoming in the pleadings explaining the delay in filing the writ petition. Therefore, on that ground itself, this writ petition deserves to be rejected. Irrespective of the delay, Ext.P5 order also shows that the District Collector entered the factual findings referring to the documents available before him, which showed that on seeing WP(C) No.30065/2010 -2- police party, the driver attempted to unload the vehicle. It is on that strength, a case is set up that the lorry was not carrying river sand. In my view, these facts make out an offence under the Act, and therefore the District Collector cannot be faulted for the view that he has taken. That apart, these are factual disputes, which cannot be resolved in a writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg