IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2010 / 22ND ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 31486 of 2010(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- 1. D.ASOK KUMAR,S/O.DAMODARAN PILLAI, 'SOPANAM',MELARIYODU ROAD, VANDANOOR, MARANALLOOR VILLAGE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. A.VIJAYAN,S/O.ABRAHAM,MEKKUMKARA PUTHEN VEEDU,MELARIYODU,VELIYAMCODU,MARANALLOOR VILLAGE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.P.SHINOD SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. JOSE PHILIP, S.I. OF POLICE, MARANALLOOR POLICE STATION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 31486 OF 2010 (I) ===================== Dated this the 14th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 2. The second petitioner is the owner of a mini lorry, which is stated to have been hired by the 1st petitioner allegedly for transporting soil from his property to his residential premises. It would appear that on the allegation that what was transported was river sand and that the same was in violation of the provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001, proceedings were initiated under the Act. The proceedings were finalised by order passed by the District Collector levying a fine of Rs.20,000/- on the petitioner. Thereafter, Ext.P2 notice dated 12/9/07 was issued requiring the remittance of the said amount. The second petitioner remitted the amount under protest. 3. Subsequently, petitioners filed Ext.P3 complaint before the Lok Ayukta alleging that in the seizure of the vehicle and imposition of fine, there is mal administration. Proceedings were WPC No. 31486/10 :2 : contested by the respondents therein and finally the Lok Ayukta by Ext.P8 rejected the complaint on the ground that petitioners could not substantiate their contention that the District Collector lacked jurisdiction to impose fine. It is challenging these proceedings, the writ petition is filed. 4. First of all, this is not a case where the Lok Ayukta had any jurisdiction, and therefore, in my view, the remedy sought by the petitioners before the Lok Ayukta was totally misconceived. 5. The challenge in this petition boils down to the validity of imposition of fine of Rs.20,000/- on the petitioners. It is the settled position of law that the District Collector who was then exercising the powers under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 could only have ordered confiscation of the vehicle and permitted offender to get the vehicle released on remittance of the value of the vehicle. The power of levy of fine is a power available only to the Court and not to the District Collector. In this case, proceedings show that instead of ordering payment of value of the vehicle, District Collector has ordered payment of fine, which the District Collector could not have done, and what he could have done, viz., ordering WPC No. 31486/10 :3 : confiscation and to release on payment of value of the vehicle, was not ordered. 6. In that view of the mater, the final order passed by the District Collector also cannot be sustained. Accordingly, Ext.P2 notice dated 12/9/07 issued to the petitioners requiring them to remit an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards fine has to be set aside and I do so. 7. In the result, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions; (1) Ext.P2 levying fine of Rs.20,000/- (Twenty thousand only) from the petitioners will stand set aside. (2) Sub Divisional Magistrate, who is now the competent authority to exercise the powers under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001, will reexamine the proceedings against the petitioners with notice to them and pass fresh orders in the matter. (3) It is clarified that this judgment will not enable the petitioners to claim refund of the amount already remitted, but its appropriation will depend upon the outcome of the fresh orders to be passed in pursuance to the directions made herein above. WPC No. 31486/10 :4 : (4) It is also made clear that the contentions on the merits raised by the petitioners are left open to be urged and adjudicated before the Sub Divisional Magistrate. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp