IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 27778 of 2009(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S) :- ------------------------ RAFEEK, S/O. BEERU, AGED 35 YEARS, AMBALATHUVEETTIL HOUSE, VALAPPAD, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA SRI.N.A.SHAFEEK SRI.K.S.SALEESH RESPONDENT(S) :- -------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. THE C.I. OF POLICE, VALAPPAD POLICE STATION, VALAPPAD, THRISSUR. 3. THE S.I. OF POLICE, VALAPPAD POLICE STATION, VALAPPAD, THRISSUR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.DILEEP MOHAN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: jvt WP(C).No. 27778 of 2009 APPENDIX Petitioner's Exhibits :- Ext.P1 :- Copy of the Goods Carriage Permit of petitioner's vehicle. Ext.P2 :- Copy of the retail invoice Bill issued by the Bismi Traders to the petitioner. Ext.P3 :- Copy of the Delivery Note. Ext.P4 :- Copy of the representation dated 8.5.2009 submitted by the petitioner before the 1st respondent. Ext.P5 :- Copy of the Judgment dated 18.8.2009 in W.P.(C)No.23651/2009 of this Hon'ble Court. Ext.P6 :- Copy of the order dated NIL of the 1st respondent. Respondent's Exhibits :- NIL //True Copy// P.A. to Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C) NO.27778 OF 2009 --------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Ext.P6 order passed by the 1st respondent exercising powers under Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. Petitioner is the registered owner of a tipper lorry bearing registration No.KL-2/V-1998. On 9.4.2009, the 2nd respondent seized the vehicle on the allegation that the lorry was used for transportation of river sand, in violation of the provisions of the Act. The matter was reported to the 1st respondent. 2. The 1st respondent issued notice to the petitioner and heard him on 24.6.2009. Thereafter, Ext.P6 order was issued, holding that the vehicle was used for illegal transportation of river sand and that the same was liable for confiscation. There was also ordered that if the petitioner remits Rs.5,50,000/- being the value of the vehicle fixed by W.P(C) NO.27778 OF 2009 2 the Joint Regional Transport Officer, the vehicle will be released. This is the order which is under challenge. 3. According to the counsel, the sand was purchased as per Ext.P2 invoice and it was transported on the strength of Ext.P3 delivery note. It is his contention that though these documents were made available to the District Collector, he passed Ext.P6 order without adverting to Ext.P2 or Ext.P3. 4. However, both in Ext.P6 and in the counter affidavit filed in this writ petition the categorical averment made is that the petitioner did not produce any document legitimising the transportation. Further, the petitioner has not produced any evidence to substantiate his contention that these documents were produced before the District Collector. That apart, the learned Government Pleader, who was obtained original files also referred me to the statement given by the driver of the vehicle at the time when the vehicle was seized, which shows that the driver had no case W.P(C) NO.27778 OF 2009 3 that he was in possession of Ext.P2 or Ext.P3 at the time of the seizure of the vehicle. Further, the statement filed by the petitioner before the 1st respondent, also shows that the petitioner did not refer to either Ext.P2 or Ext.P3. Thus the factual findings in Ext.P6 and the averments in the counter affidavit to prove that the petitioner did not produce Ext.P2 or Ext.P3 at any time before the 1st respondent. 5. That apart, counter affidavit also refers to the amendment to Rule 38-B of the Tamilnadu Miner Mineral Concession Rules which prohibits transportation of river sand to out side the State. That amendment came into force with effect from 25.8.2006 and if that be so, theory of the petitioner that the sand was originally brought by his vendor from Tamil Nadu is unbelievable. That apart, even if it is resumed that the sand was purchased by the petitioner, the petitioner has not produced any permit obtained from KMMC Rules, which alone legitimizes transportation of river sand. In view of these facts, the findings of the District Collector W.P(C) NO.27778 OF 2009 4 that the vehicle in question was used for unauthorised transportation of river sand cannot be faulted. 6. Then what remains is the correctness of the value of the vehicle that is fixed in Ext.P6. Reading of Ext.P6 shows that the District Collector got the value of the vehicle fixed by the Joint Regional Transport Officer and it is based on such fixation, that value ordered to be remitted by the petitioner. Nobody can dispute the competence of the Joint Regional Transport Officer to fix the value of the vehicle. Further there is also no material to conclude that the valuation done is vitiated for any reason. Writ petition is only to be dismissed and I do so. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE dmb