IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2010 / 9TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 507 of 2010(K) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- ROUSHATH.P.R,S/O.RAVI.P.S,AGED 22 YEARS, PALAKKAPURAMBIL HOUSE, ANAPUZHA.P.O,KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT.(OWNER OF A MINI LORRY BEARING REGISTRATION NUMBER:KL-10-W-5049) BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,THRISSUR. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,KODUNGALLUR POLICE STATION. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. M.A. ASIF THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 507/2010. ---------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.P.C.NO. 22953/2009. EXT.P2 ORDER DT. 27-8-2009. EXT.P3 ORDER DT. 19-9-2009. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 507 of 2010 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 30th day of June, 2010. J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Ext. P3 order passed by the District Collector, Thrissur under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. By that order, after finding that the petitioner transported river sand illegally using the petitioner's vehicle, the petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 3,75,000/- being the value of the vehicle towards the River Management Fund. The petitioner challenges the same. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of being heard before passing Ext. P2 order and also that the valuation of the vehicle is exorbitant and unreasonable. 2. In Ext. P3 order, the District Collector has specifically stated as follows: “The petition submitted on 31/03/2009 by Sri. Roushath the owner of the vehicle states that the transportation of river sand was done without any pass or authorization. He requests the District Collector to release the vehicle to him by imposing a nominal fine. He also assures the District Collector that, the vehicle will not be used for illegal transporting of river sand in future.” Nowhere in the writ petition the petitioner has stated that that finding in Ext. P3 order is not correct and that he had not filed any petition on 31-3-2009 admitting the illegal transport. That being so, having admitted the offence, the petitioner cannot now turn around and claim that the transport was legal. The petitioner has also not produced any material either before the District Collector or this Court to disprove the findings in the impugned order. As far as the valuation is concerned, from the order itself, it is clear that the value of the vehicle was fixed by the Sub Regional Transport Officer, Kodungaloor. W.P.C. No. 507/2010. -: 2 :- The petitioner has also not produced any material whatsoever to show that that valuation is in any way excessive or unreasonable. As such, the petitioner has not made out any ground whatsoever for interfering with Ext. P3. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/