IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2011 / 23RD POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 32582 of 2010(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- ASHIQUE B.M. S/O.MUHAMMED KUNHU,BLAYIPARAMBA, THRIKKARA PO, UNNICHIRA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SMT.T.RESMI DAMODARAN RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,ERNAKULAM 2. THE DIRECTOR,MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTME NT,KESAVADASAPURAM,TRIVANDRUM-4. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 32582 OF 2010 ===================== Dated this the 13th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P2 order dated 20/4/2010 passed by the District Collector exercising his powers under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. By this order, after rejecting all contentions of the petitioner, the District Collector has held that the vehicle bearing Regn.No.KL-7 BJ 8183 of the petitioner was used in violation of the provisions of the Act and on that basis, held the vehicle liable for confiscation. Accordingly, the value of the vehicle was fixed and the petitioner was given the option to get the vehicle released on remittance of the value. 2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the only request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents should be directed to get the sand found in the lorry tested by the Geologist and to decide the matter afresh on that basis. A reading of Ext.P2 order shows that the vehicle was seized, proceedings were initiated and concluded on the basis that what was seized from the vehicle was river sand. Apart from WPC No. 32582/10 :2 : raising this plea, petitioner has not produced anything atleast prima facie to suggest that the sand transported was not river sand. On the other hand, if the sand were ordinary sand, petitioner could have produced the permit on the basis of which the same was mined or could have produced atleast the invoice on the basis of which the same was purchased. Nothing has been produced. On the other hand, at this distance of time, the attempt of the petitioner is only to stall the proceedings, and therefore, the prayer lacks bonafides. I am not persuaded to issue any such direction. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp