SHAJI ANDREWS Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ext. P16 order passed by the 2nd respondent confiscating a vehicle belonging to the petitioner under Section 23 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) and Rule 27(3) of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules for short) is under challenge in this writ petition. The vehicle in question was seized by the 4th respondent on 09/10/2006 at about 5.20 p.m. alleging transportation of 'River Sand' in violation of the Act and Rules. The vehicle was entrusted to the 2nd respondent for taking further steps. The petitioner preferred Ext. P6 objections before the 2nd respondent. Initially an order of confiscation was issued by the 2nd respondent as per Ext. P9, on 12/01/2007, directing payment of a sum of Rs. 1,98,000/- towards value of the vehicle and another sum of Rs. 1,98,000/- towards fine. The above said order was challenged by the petitioner in an earlier writ petition. In Ext. P10 judgment this Court had set aside the order in view of the decision Sanjayan v. Tahsildar,2007 4 KerLT 597, settling that the District Collector has no power under the Act to impose fine on the owner of the vehicle. Thereafter the matter was considered afresh by the 2nd respondent and the order impugned in the writ petition was issued ordering confiscation of the vehicle and directing payment of a sum of Rs. 1,98,000/- towards value of the vehicle and Rs. 25,000/- towards fine, under Rule 27(3).

(2.) In the meanwhile, interim custody of the vehicle was given to the petitioner based on an interim order passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition, subject to condition of remittance of an amount of Rs. 35,000/- and on furnishing an undertaking that the petitioner will not alienate or part with possession of the vehicle.

(3.) Petitioner raised contentions disputing the factual aspects with respect to the alleged illegal transportation of 'River Sand', at the time of seizure of the vehicle. It is contended that the transportation was on the strength of a valid pass, and therefore there was no violation of the Act and Rules. Ext. P2 'Cash Memorandum' is produced in support of the above contention. According to the petitioner the delay in transportation occurred only because the vehicle had broken down en route and it got repaired from a workshop situated at Kottayam. Ext. P4 bill for purchase of spare parts was also produced in support of the above contention.