IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2009 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 32242 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- AJITH, S/O.VIJAYAN, AGED 39 YEARS, IYYANI MANDAMPULLY HOUSE, P.O.CHETTUVA, ENGANDIYOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.RAJIT RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR, COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADANAPPILLY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY MR. P. NARAYANAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO. 32242/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF THE VEHICLE BEARING REG. NO. KL 55/A-5640 P2:- TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE DELIVERY NOTE SHOWING THAT THE SAND WAS TRANSPORTED P3:- TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER NO. B7.26372/09 DATED 25.9.2009 PASSED BY THE FIRST REPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.N.RAVINDRAN,J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 32242 of 2009 - A ---------------------------------------- Dated 15th December, 2009 Judgment Heard Sri.Rajit, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.P.Narayanan, the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is the registered owner of a goods vehicle bearing registration No.KL/55A-5640. The said vehicle was seized by the second respondent on 17.5.2009 on the allegation that it was used to transport river sand without a valid pass. A report was thereupon submitted to the District Collector, Thrissur who initiated proceedings under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 and the Rules framed thereunder. The District Collector thereafter heard the petitioner and passed Ext.P3 order dated 25.9.2009 ordering confiscation of the petitioner's vehicle. The District Collector however permitted the petitoiner to avoid confiscation by paying the sum of Rs.7,25,000/- fixed as the value of the vehicle by the Joint Regional Transport Officer. Ext.P3 is under challenge in this writ petition. W.P.(C) No.32242/2009 2 3. The petitioner contends that the sand transported in his vehicle was sand purchased from the State of Tamilnadu and that it was accompanied by a valid pass. He contends that the said pass was seized by the second respondent but, not forwarded to the District Collector. He also contends that the District Collector has not adverted to the various grounds raised by him at the time of hearing. The petitioner has a further contention that his vehicle can be confiscated only if he is successfully prosecuted under section 20 of the Act. Reliance is placed on the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in Ahammedkutty v. State of Kerala (2008 (1) KLT 1068) in support of the said contention. 4. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the files leading to Ext.P3 were produced by the learned Government Pleader. The file disclose that the petitioner had submitted an application dated 28.5.2009 before the District Collector, Thrissur wherein he had stated that the sand transported in his vehicle was the sand brought in another vehicle which could not ply along the road where his vehicle was plying. He had also stated therein that he had applied for permission to transport sand, that the District Collector had W.P.(C) No.32242/2009 3 informed him that it is enough if he produces the pass issued from the State of Tamilnadu in the Police Station enroute and that based on the said advise he had obtained the permission of the Sub Inspector of Police, Vadanappally. In the said representation, the petitioner had no case that the pass which accompanied the sand transported in his vehicle was taken into custody by the Sub Inspector of Police and destroyed. Later, the petitioner filed another representation dated 25.6.2009 wherein also he had no such case. In the said representation also his case was that the sand transported in his vehicle was sand brought from the State of Tamilnadu. In the representation dated 4.6.2009 also, the petitioner had no case that the sand transported in his vehicle was covered by a valid pass and that it was seized and destroyed by the Police officers. The files disclose that the District Collector has in Ext.P3 held that though the petitioner had contended before him that sand transported in his vehicle was sand purchased and brought from the State of Tamilnadu, the petitioner has not been able to substantiate the said contention by producing any document in support of the said plea. Though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends with reference to W.P.(C) No.32242/2009 4 Ext.P2 delivery note that the sand transported in his vehicle was covered by that delivery note, the learned counsel fairly conceded that the delivery note will not prove that the petitioner's vehicle had crossed the border checkpost on its way from the State of Tamilnadu to Vadanappally. Apart from relying on Ext.P2, the petitioner had not produced any material even to indicate that his vehicle was used to transport river sand brought from the State of Tamilnadu to the State of Kerala. In the absence of any cogent material to substantiate the petitioner's contention that the sand transported in his vehicle was sand purchased from the State of Tamilnadu, the finding in Ext.P3 that the petitioner was illegally transporting river sand cannot be said to be any way vitiated. I therefore find no ground to interfere with the finding in Ext.P3 that the petitioner's vehicle was used to transport river sand in violation of the law. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner lastly contended that the value fixed by the District Collector for his vehicle is exorbitant. Ext.P1 Certificate of Registration disclose that the petitioner obtained delivery of the vehicle on 6.7.2005. The petitioner's vehicle is only less than four years old. As the W.P.(C) No.32242/2009 5 registered owner he should have been in possession of the invoice issued by the dealer which will show the price at which it was sold to the petitioner. The petitioner has no case that he is not possession of the invoice issued by the dealer who sold the vehicle to him. The best evidence to show the value of the vehicle would have been the invoice issued by the dealer to the petitioner. Apart from merely contending that the value fixed by the District Collector for the vehicle is exorbitant, the petitioner has not produced any material to show the invoice value or the depreciated value of the vehicle. In such circumstances, I am not persuaded to hold that the value fixed by the District Collector for the vehicle, is exorbitant. For the reasons stated above, I hold that there is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge vaa