IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2010 / 4TH ASHADHA 1932 WA.No. 1068 of 2010() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUGMENT IN WPC.14504/2010 dated 01/06/2010 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: -------------- BAJI, AGED 26 YEARS S/O. NARAYANAN CHEMPRA HOUSE, ANTHODE.P.O., CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT (OWNER OF VEHICLE BEARING REG.NO.KL-08-V-9499) BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL) RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PONNANI POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY G.P.SMT.K.MEERA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.CHELAMESWAR, C.J. & P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------- W.A.No.1068 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated 25th June, 2010 JUDGMENT J.Chelameswar, C.J. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 1st June, 2010 in W.P.(C)No.14504 of 2010 the unsuccessful petitioner in the writ petition filed the instant appeal. The vehicle of the appellant/writ petitioner was seized under the provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 on the ground that the vehicle was found carrying river sand without appropriate documents mentioned under the above mentioned Act, by an order which is filed as Ext.P2 in the writ petition. Challenging Ext.P2 order the writ petition came to be filed. By the judgment under appeal, the learned Judge arrived at a finding that the appellant/writ petitioner did not participate in the adjudication process which eventually resulted in the passing of Ext.P2 order. The learned Judge also categorically found that the appellant/writ petitioner had received notice for hearing of the matter before the adjudicatory authority. The learned Judge also took note of the fact that though the petitioner, appellant herein, claimed to have W.A.No.1068/2010 2 possessed a valid permit to transport river sand, the same was not produced before the adjudicatory authority and no explanation was offered by the appellant/petitioner for the non- production of the same before the adjudicatory authority. Even otherwise, we have perused Ext.P1 document relied upon by the appellant. It indicates that it was a permit granted for a period covering 9.05 a.m. to 1 p.m. on 25.1.2010. Whereas, the vehicle itself was seized at 4.15 p.m. Even assuming for the sake of argument that Ext.P1 document is to be looked into by this Court, it is obvious on the above stated facts that at the point of time when the vehicle was seized, there was no valid permit. In the circumstances, we do not find any ground to entertain this writ appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage. J.CHELAMESWAR Chief Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge ahg