Sujish S. vs District Collector and Addition Sub-Inspector of Police

Antony Dominic, J.—Petitioner is the owner of Mahindra Mini Tipper lorry bearing Reg. No. KL-7/AM 1580. On 11.2.2010 at about 2.00 p.m the 2nd Respondent intercepted the vehicle, and registered a case on the allegation that the Petitioner was transporting river sand, in violation of the provisions of Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. Proceedings were finalized by Ext.P15 order holding that the river sand was transported in the tipper lorry in violation of the provision of the Act and the Petitioner was ordered to remit Rs. 2,00,000/- being the value of the vehicle. It was also ordered that in the event of the Petitioner not remitting the value fixed, the vehicle will be sold in auction. This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P15 order.

Main contention raised by the counsel for the Petitioner is that the sand in question was purchased from a licensed dealer and that there was no proof that the sand was river sand. In so far as, the contention of the counsel for the Petitioner that there was no proof that the sand in question was river sand is concerned, in the impugned order itself that it is recorded that during the course of the hearing, the counsel for the Petitioner conceded that what was transported in the vehicle was river sand which was purchased from a licensed dealer. Once the fact that the sand was river sand was admitted, they arise no question of any further proof of such an admitted fact. Although, it is stated in ground ''D'' of the writ petition that the Petitioner or his Advocate never admitted before the District Collector that the sand in the vehicle was river sand, apart from this averment in ground ''D'', there is nothing to substantiate this plea raised in the writ petition. Further if as a matter of fact, an erroneous fact has been recorded in the impugned order, nothing prevented the Petitioner or his Advocate from bringing that fact to the notice of the District Collector. That was not done. Further the counsel, who appeared before the District collector also has not filed any affidavit before this Court to the effect that what is stated in the impugned order is incorrect. Therefore, the Petitioner''s bald assertion cannot be accepted in its face value, and I would rather go by what is stated in Ext.P15 order and reject the contention of the Petitioner. Further, in Ext.P15, the statement of the Sub Inspector of Police, who seized the vehicle, that at the time of its seizure, water was dripping from the sand is recorded and this also indicates that sand in question cannot be anything other than river sand.

In so far as, the plea of the Petitioner that sand in question was purchased from a licensed dealer is concerned, it is mentioned in the impugned order that this Court has already imposed a prohibition of private parties dealing in river sand. If that be so, that theory canvassed by the Petitioner cannot be factually correct. In any case, nothing has been produced in this writ petition to find that this factual findings of the District collector is erroneous.

Therefore, I do not find any merit in both contentions raised by the Petitioner.

Writ petition is dismissed.