KOLAKKADAN NAUSHAD Vs. KEEZHUPARAMBA GRAMA PANCHAYATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the owner of a lorry bearing registration No.KL-57/4358. That lorry was seized by respondents 3 and 4 on allegations of illegal transportation of river sand in violation of the provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Rules. Accordingly, Ext.P2 mahazar was prepared, wherein it is stated that the vehicle was seized, when the petitioner tried to transport river sand from Murathamadu kadavu in Keezhuparambu Panchayat and was entering Kozhikode district, since there is a ban of transportation of river sand from one district to another district. Pursuant to the seizure, Ext.P4 order was passed by the 2nd respondent directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 3 lakhs towards river management fund and Rs. 25,000/- as fine, on receipt of which, the vehicle was directed to be released. This Court, by Ext.P5 judgment in W.P. (C).No.6643/2008, set aside that order on technical grounds and directed the District Collector to pass fresh orders. The District Collector thereafter passed Ext.P6 order again finding that the petitioner was engaged in illegal transportation of river sand and directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 50,000/- as the value of the vehicle and Rs. 25,000/- towards fine towards river management fund, on payment of which, the vehicle was directed to be released. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P6 order seeking the following reliefs;

(2.) THE petitioner's contention is that in Ext.P6 order the District Collector has found that the petitioner has violated Rule 29(8) of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Rules, which offence, the petitioner has not committed and, therefore, Ext.P6 order is clearly unsustainable. According to the petitioner, Rule 29(8) of the Rules relates to transportation of sand stored by a person without a pass obtained for purchase of sand. The petitioner also submits that the transport was accompanied by Ext.P1 pass issued by the 1st respondent Panchayat and, therefore, the vehicle was not liable to be seized even.