VINOD KUMAR Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge is against Ext.P7 order passed by the Additional District Magistrate who was in charge of the District Collector under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the Petitioner raised three contentions. Firstly it is pointed out that the District Collector has not passed any order but the Additional District Magistrate who was in charge has signed the order. Secondly it is pointed out that the Petitioner was not heard before passing the order. It is also submitted that the mahazar was not prepared in tune with Rule 27(2) of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Rules, 2002 and no copy of such mahazar has been served to the Petitioner. Therefore, the entire seizure and consequent confiscation are invalid.

(3.) The Petitioner's case is that after the vehicle was seized on 24/12/2009, the Petitioner moved an application for getting the vehicle released as per Ext.P4 on 18/01/2010. The first Respondent passed an order to return the vehicle to the Petitioner on condition of payment of fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Accordingly, the amount was paid and the vehicle was released. According to him, he was on the bona fide belief that the said order was final. But, he was served with Ext.P7 order whereby he was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,60,000/-.