IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 32016 of 2009(V) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- HAMZA V., AGED 55 YEARS,S/O.MARAKKAR, VENKITTA HOUSE,PANG SOUTH P.O., KURUVA,KOLATHUR. BY ADVS. MR.ESM.KABEER MR.ABDUL MAJEED.N RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,MALAPPURAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLATHUR POLICE STATION. BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.N.RAVINDRAN,J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.32016 of 2009 - V ---------------------------------------- Dated 10th November, 2009 Judgment The petitioner is the registered owner of a goods vehicle bearing registration No.KL/10W-7297. The said vehicle was seized by the second respondent on 7.9.2008 on the allegation that it was used to transport river sand without a valid pass. A report was thereupon submitted to the District Collector, Malappuram who initiated proceedings under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 and the Rules framed thereunder. Thereafter, the District Collector issued notice to the petitioner, heard him on 30.9.2008 and passed an order on 4.12.2008 ordering confiscation of the petitioner's vehicle. The District Collector however permitted the petitioner to avoid confiscation of the vehicle by remitting the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- which was fixed as the value of the vehicle in the River Management Fund. Ext.P1 is under challenge in this writ petition. W.P.(C) No.32016/2009 2 2. The petitioner conceded before the District Collector that the sand transported in his vehicle was not covered by a valid pass. His case was that sand extracted from the kadavu was transported in his vehicle for own use and not for commercial use. The District Collector noticed that on an earlier occasion, the very same vehicle was seized on 30.3.2007 for illegally transporting sand and the vehicle was ordered to be confiscated, but the petitioner was permitted to avoid confiscation by paying Rs.1,25,000/- in the River Management Fund. On noticing that the petitioner was habitually transporting river sand without a pass, the District Collector ordered confiscation of his vehicle. He however permitted the petitioner to avoid confiscation by paying Rs.1,50,000/- in the River Management Fund. Incidentally, in Ext.P1 he also noticed that the petitioner has not complied with the order issued on the earlier occasion to deposit the sum of Rs.1,25,000/- to avoid confiscation. The petitioner challenges Ext.P1 essentially on the ground that though the sand carried in the vehicle was not covered by a valid permit, W.P.(C) No.32016/2009 3 the sand was for his own personal use, that only one-fourth of a lorry load of sand was carried therein and that the earlier order issued by the District Collector to pay Rs.1,25,000/- was complied with. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits relying on Ext.P2 receipt that the sum of Rs.1,25,000/- was paid on 15.12.2008. He submits that as the sand transported in the petitioner's vehicle was not meant for commercial purpose but for his personal use, the District Collector erred in ordering confiscation of the vehicle. 3. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel on either side. The sand carried in the petitioner's vehicle was admittedly not covered by a valid pass. The petitioner has also admitted that the sand carried in his vehicle was extracted from a kadavu. It is therefore evident that the petitioner has transported sand contrary to the stipulations in the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 and the Rules framed thereunder. The petitioner's vehicle was therefore liable to be proceeded against and confiscated. In such circumstances, I W.P.(C) No.32016/2009 4 find no merit in the challenge to Ext.P1. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. However, in order to avoid confiscation, I grant the petitioner an opportunity to pay the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- in three equal monthly instalments. The first instalment of Rs.50,000/- shall be remitted on or before 30.11.2009, the second on or before 30.12.2009 and the third, on or before 30.1.2010. The vehicle shall be released to the petitioner on the petitioner remitting the second instalment of Rs.50,000/-, on his executing a bond in favour of the District Collector, undertaking that the balance amount will be paid on or before 30.1.2010. If the balance amount is not paid on or before 30.1.2010, it will be open to the District Collector to re- possess the vehicle and sell it in public auction to realise the balance amount remaining unpaid. 4. As regards the statement in Ext.P1 that the petitioner has not paid the sum of Rs.1,25,000/-, the District Collector shall on the petitioner producing the original of Ext.P2 receipt verify whether the said payment was in compliance with the earlier order passed by him and record satisfaction of the W.P.(C) No.32016/2009 5 earlier order passed by him if the payment evidenced by Ext.P2 was in compliance with the said order. P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge vaa