IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 18TH DECEMBER 2008 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 34478 of 2008(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ P.T.VINODKUMAR, S/O.NARAYANAN, PALAKKATHODY HOUSE, INDIANOOR (PO), KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM (DT). BY ADV. SRI.T.K.AJITH KUMAR SRI.P.VINODKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM 2. THE TAHSILDAR, THIRURANGADI TALUK, THIRURANGADI (PO). 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, THIRURANGADI TALUK, THIRURANGADI (PO) 4. RAJAN, S/O.KUNHUMON, KOONAMMAL HOUSE, MEENADATHOOR (PO), THANALOOR, MALAPPURAM (DT). 5. THE SECRETARY, OTHUKKUNGAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, OTHUKKUNGAL (PO), MALAPPURAM (DT). ADV. SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN FOR R5 SRI.S.SREEDEV GOVT.PLEADER SMT.M.R.SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.34478/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: PERMIT DATED 3.9.2008 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY,OTHUKKUNGAL GRAMAPANCHAYAT FOR TRANSPORTING RIVER SAND. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR DATED 3.9.2008 PREPARED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: SALE AGREEMENT DATED 20.10.2008. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 14.10.2008. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 4.9.2008. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 34478 OF 2008 (D) ==================== Dated this the 18th day of December, 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P4, an order passed by the District Collector, Malappuram exercising his powers under the Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. By this order, he has ordered confiscation of the Mini Lorry bearing Regn.No.KL 10 U 8831, if the amounts specified therein are not remitted by the owner of the vehicle. Petitioner submits that he is the agreement owner of the vehicle and that before passing Ext.P4 order, notice was issued only to the registered owner, who did not appear in response to the notice issued by the District Collector. It is stated that if he was given an opportunity, he would have been in a position to satisfy the District Collector that the vehicle is not liable for confiscation. 2. Admittedly, notice was issued only to the registered owner and the registered owner kept away from the proceedings. It is in such circumstances, Ext.P4 order was passed. Since the petitioner has prima facie showed that he has interest in the vehicle, it is only appropriate that he is also heard in this matter. 3. Therefore, I direct that on the production of a copy of this WPC 34478/08 :2 : judgment, the Collector shall reconsider the matter, after giving the petitioner also an opportunity to make his submissions in the matter. 4. In order to enable the District Collector to do so, I quash Ext.P4. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the District Collector, for compliance, in which event, it will be open to the District Collector to straight away hear him and pass orders as directed above. At any rate, orders shall be passed, within a period of 4 weeks of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp