IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2009 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 6060 of 2009(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ ABDUL RAHIM, S/O.MOHAMMED, KARINGAMTHODI, KALPALLI, MAVOOR P.O., KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. THE ASSISTANT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 6060 OF 2009 (B) ==================== Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T Ext.P1 order is under challenge. 2. By this order, vehicle bearing Regn.No.KL-12/3807 has been found to have been used for the unauthorised transportation of river sand. On that basis, the District Collector has imposed a fine of Rs.25,000/- and the petitioner has been directed to remit the value of the vehicle quantified at Rs.1,50,000/- to the River Management Fund. Although the counsel for the petitioner challenged the finding of guilt as contained in Ext.P1, the 1st paragraph of Ext.P1 itself show that the vehicle in question was seized from a route which was different from the route specified in the pass. If that be so, that finding contained in Ext.P1 cannot be faulted. 3. Then, it was contended that the District Collector cannot levy the fine. This contention of the counsel for the petitioner deserves acceptance in view of the provisions contained in the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 with Rules, 2002. 4. The next complaint is that the value assessed is exhorbitant. WPC 6060/09 :2 : In view of the specific plea that was raised, by order dated 27/2/2009, the case was adjourned with a direction to the learned Government Pleader to obtain instructions as to what basis the value of the vehicle has been assessed, and today it is reported that by appearance and going by the model of the vehicle, the value has been assessed. In my view, that is an erroneous basis. 5. If value is to be fixed, that ought to have been done by getting the same assessed by a competent officer of the Motor Vehicles Department. Therefore, the fine of Rs.25,000/- levied on the petitioner and the value of Rs.1,50,000/- directed to be paid in Ext.P1 will stand set aside. 6. It is made clear that on the production of a copy of this judgment, the District Collector shall get the value of the vehicle assessed by a competent officer of the Motor Vehicles Department and on that basis, issue order requiring the petitioner to remit the value so assessed to the River Management Fund. It is directed that this process shall be completed within 10 days of production of a copy of this judgment. 7. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the District Collector for compliance. WPC 6060/09 :3 : 8. It is directed that until the value is so assessed and demanded, the sale of the vehicle which was scheduled on 28/2/2009 and adjourned pursuant to the order dated 27/2/2009 will stand adjourned. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp