IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2009 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 7722 of 2009(I) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHAMSUDEEN T.P., S/O.MOOSA, THALIKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PAIKANOOR P.O., KUTTIPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, TIRUR TALUK, TIRUR. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VALANCHERY POLICE STATION. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.7722 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 6th day of April, 2009 J U D G M E N T Challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P2. 2. By this order passed by the 1st respondent, it has been found that the vehicle bearing Regn.No. KL-10/X-4627, of which the petitioner is the owner, was involved in the unauthorised transportation of river sand. On that basis, the petitioner has been directed to remit an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- being the value of the vehicle to the River Management Fund. 3. There are two allegations in Ext.P2. One is that the vehicle was seized at 4.15 pm, while the time allowed for transportation is 2.00 hours from 12.25 pm. Yet another finding is that the vehicle should have gone towards the Valanchery- Perinthalmanna route, and that as against this, the vehicle had gone towards Pandikassala Kattipparuthi route. 4. In so far as both these findings are concerned, I notice that in the objection filed by the petitioner, these two issues have been disputed. In so far as the time factor found against the WP(C) No.7722/2009 -2- petitioner is concerned, according to the petitioner, the vehicle was seized at around 1.45 pm, and that it was detained by the Police officials and that it was later recorded that the seizure was after the permitted time. In so far as the finding that the vehicle had gone towards Pandikassala Kattipparuthi area is concerned, it is stated that after detaining the vehicle, the vehicle was parked in that route as directed by the Police officials. 5. However, I notice from Ext.P2 that none of these contentions have been adverted to by the District Collector. Therefore, I am inclined to think that Ext.P2 is passed without adverting to the relevant contentions of the petitioner. For that reason, I set aside Ext.P2, and it is directed that the 1st respondent shall issue notice to the petitioner and pass fresh orders in the matter duly adverting to the contentions raised. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg