IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2010 / 17TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20909 of 2010(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.I.CHACKO, S/O.IDICULA CHERIYAN, KARAYAKKALLIL HOUSE, THIRUVANDOOR P.O., CHENGANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) SRI.M.SUNILKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, CHENGANNUR. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.20909 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 8th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext.P5 order passed by the District Collector under the the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act. By that order, after finding that the vehicle has been used for illegal transportation of river sand, the possessor of the vehicle has been directed to pay an amount of Rs.2 lakhs as the value of the vehicle towards river management fund. The contention of the petitioner is that the vehicle was not carrying any river sand but ordinary sand, which was supported by Ext.P4 cash memorandum and therefore there is no violation of the provisions of the Act. He further submits that the petitioner, who is the registered owner of the vehicle, has not been heard before passing Ext.P5 order. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. He points out that as per the Act and Rules, only the person in possession of the vehicle need be afforded an opportunity of being heard. Admittedly, the person in possession of the vehicle had been afforded an opportunity of being heard and he was heard. As far as other contentions of the petitioner are concerned, the Government Pleader submits that the Geologist who examined the sand has opined that the sand by appearance is similar to river sand. He further submits w.p.c.20909/10 2 that as is evident from Ext.P3 mahazar, the vehicle was being filled with river sand at the Thiruvan Vandoor Maliyil kadavu, and on seeing the inspection party, the driver drove off the vehicle and parked in it in nearby compound, from where the vehicle and sand had been seized. He points out that when the inspection party chased the vehicle, the driver ran off abandoning the vehicle. He further points out that Ext.P4 cash memorandum does not bear the signature and seal of the geologist and as per Rule 48(k) of the Rules, cash memoranda have to be issued in the forms issued by the geologist having jurisdiction and bearing his signature and seal. Ext.P4 does not contain the signature of the geologist or his seal. He further points out that cash memorandum has to be issued in favour of the person who purchased sand. According to him, the case of the possessor of the vehicle was that the sand was purchased on behalf of SNDP. But in Ext.P4 the name of the person who purchased the sand is shown as Anil. The Government Pleader, therefore, submits that Ext.P4 cannot be relied upon to decide in favour of the petitioner. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, as per the Act and Rules, a hearing has to be afforded only to the possessor of the vehicle. Admittedly the driver of the vehicle who was available in the vehicle at the time of seizure had been afforded an w.p.c.20909/10 3 opportunity of being heard and his contentions were heard also. As such, the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner being the registered owner of the vehicle ought to have been given an opportunity of being heard does not appeal to me. I am not inclined to rely upon Ext.P4 cash memorandum for the reasons stated by the learned Government Pleader. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, under Rule 48(k) of the Rules, cash memoranda have to be issued in the forms issued with signature and seal of the geologist. Ext.P4 does not contain any seal or signature. Further, from Ext.P3 seizure mahazar it is clear that the vehicle was chased by the inspecting party from the kadavu while the vehicle was being loaded with sand and then seized when the driver ran away abandoning the vehicle. That together with the opinion of the geologist is sufficient to conclude that what was found in the vehicle is river sand. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity whatsoever in the finding of the District Collector that the vehicle was used for transporting river sand in violation of the Act and Rules. The petitioner has not raised any other contentions. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.20909/10 4