IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2010 / 12TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 24296 of 2010(J) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ UMMER, S/O. ABDUL KHADER, AGED 38 YEARS, THOOMINAD HOUSE, POST PUNCHATHUR, MACNCHESWARAM, KASARGOD DIST. BY ADV. MR.MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KANNUR – 35. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MALOOR POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT – 35. ADV.MR. P. NARAYANAN – GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.24296 OF 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext.P3 order of the District Collector, Kannur whereby on a finding that the petitioner's vehicle was involved in an unauthorised transport of river sand, the petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- as value of the vehicle towards River Management Fund. According to the petitioner, the sand in the vehicle was supported by a valid P-Form, copy of which is produced as Ext.P5 and therefore, there is no reason even to suspect that the petitioner's vehicle was involved in an unauthorised transport of river sand. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. From Ext.P5, I find that the said pass was issued to the petitioner for transportation of river sand from 'Bajppukkadavu to Kalikkadavu'. Admittedly, the vehicle was seized at Maloor, which as per Ext.P3, is 100 kilometers away from 'Kalikkadavu', which is the destination. The petitioner could not, with any W.P.(c)No.24296/10 2 reliable material, satisfy me that the vehicle was not seized at Maloor. The petitioner's present contention, which was not raised before the Collector that the driver overshoot 'Kalikkadavu' des not appeal to me since Maloor is 100 kilometers away. The petitioner has also not been able to satisfy me that Maloor is not 100 kilometers away as found in Ext.P3. That being so, the petitioner has not given any satisfactory explanation as to why the lorry bound for 'Kalikkadavu' should go to 'Maloor', 100 kilometers away from 'Kalikkadavu'. That itself is sufficient proof of the violation by the petitioner. As such, there is no merit in the challenge against the finding in Ext.P3 that the petitioner has transported river sand in violation of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act. 3. The petitioner raises a contention that the valuation of the vehicle is excessive. But I find that the valuation was fixed on the basis of the report of the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, who is a competent officer to value motor vehicles. Therefore, there is no merit in the challenge against the W.P.(c)No.24296/10 3 valuation also. In view of my above finding, there is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(c)No.24296/10 4