IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 19TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 3925 of 2008(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SURESHKUMAR,S/O.CHOYI VAILIPPATT HOUSE, RINGAVOOR P.O., TIRUR ,MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRIC.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE TIRUR, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KALPAKANCHERRY POLICE STATION.KALPAKANCHERRY. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTRATE, CIVIL STATION MALAPPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/02/2008,ALONG WITH WPC NO. 3869 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. W.P.(C)NOS. 3869 & 3925 of 2008. DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2008 JUDGMENT The challenge in these writ petitions is against the orders passed by the third respondent exercising powers under Rule 27 of the Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act,2001 and Rules, 2002. By the impugned orders produced as Ext.P7, the District Collector found that the vehicles in question in these cases were involved in the unauthorised transportation of river sand and that Rs.35,000/- and Rs.50,000/- has been levied as fine apart from directing remittance of Rs.50,000/- each towards the value for releasing the trucks. 2. On an earlier occasion, this Court by Ext.P5 judgment had directed the third respondent to reconsider the matter after giving opportunity to the petitioners to explain their contentions. It is evident that such an opportunity was given. As stated in the impugned orders itself, it was the contention of the petitioners that the sand was collected and removed from the W.P.C.3925/2008 -2- kadavu on the basis of passes. However, the petitioners did not produce such passes based on which the sand in question was lifted from the kadavu. 3. The complaint in the writ petitions is that the District Collector has not given adequate opportunity to them to produce the pass. I am not in a position to agree with the counsel. The reason for such conclusion is that if the petitioners had such a pass, they should have produced the same at the time when they appeared before the District Collector. Not only that the petitioners have not produced the passes before the District Collector and even in these writ petitions they have not produced the passes. If the petitioners were retransporting the river sand with a valid permit, they had the responsibility to prove that the sand was collected legitimately. The same has not been done. 4. I do not find any merit in the objections raised against Ext.P7 order passed. The writ petitions are dismissed. ks. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE W.P.C.3925/2008 -3- K.R.UDAYABHANU,J. =================== CRL.A.NO. OF 200 JUDGMENT DATE: ......2006 =====================