IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2010 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 15411 of 2010(B) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ VARGHESE JOSEPH, PUTHIYADATHUMADATHIL HOUSE, THYKATTUSSERY P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BOBBY JOHN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POOCHACKAL, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 3. THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 15411 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext.P7 order passed by the District Collector under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 & Rules. In that order, on a finding that the petitioner unauthorizedly transported river sand in violation of the Act and Rules, the petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- towards River Management Fund, which was the value of the vehicle assessed by the Regional Transport Officer. 2. The petitioner raises several contentions. The first is that the road through which the petitioner was alleged to have transported the sand was so narrow that the vehicle in question could not have passed through that road. Second is that the petitioner has produced a certificate issued by the Secretary of the Thykattusery Grama W.P.(C)No. 15411 of 2010 -2- Panchayath for transportation of the river sand which was being transported from the premises of a relative of the petitioner for the purpose of construction of a house. The third is that, the District Collector has mechanically fixed the value of the vehicle as the price of the vehicle instead of considering whether this was the first time that vehicle was involved in the illegal transportation of river sand. He relies on the decision of this court in Subramanian v. State of Kerala (2009 (1) KLT 77). 3. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. From Ext.P7, I find that the certificate produced by the petitioner was for transportation of sand using the vehicle KL-04-U 3653 whereas the seized vehicle is KL-32A 6753. That itself shows the clandestine effort of the petitioner to transport sand illegally. He has not produced any proof before the District Collector to support his contention that through the road in question the vehicle could not have passed. As far as the fixation of price is concerned, the fact W.P.(C)No. 15411 of 2010 -3- that after unauthorizedly transporting the sand, the petitioner tried to justify the same by a false document itself shows the culpable mind of the petitioner. I am of opinion that unless such tendencies are curbed by very strict enforcement of the Act and Rules such activities cannot be effectively prevented. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in the challenge against Ext.P7. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE shg/