The Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a petitioner who alleged that the Second Respondent lacked power to impose a fine for illegal sand transportation. The Court held the amount was a redemption sum for the vehicle, discharged as per the statute, and thus the petitioner's petition failed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
TUESDAY, THE 11TH OCTOBER 2011 / 19TH ASWINA 1933
WP(C).No. 2669 of 2005(P) -------------------------
PETITIONER(S): ---------------
VALSAMMA JOSEPH, AGED 51, W/O. JOSEPH, KARIMADAM HOUSE, KADUMENI P.O., KASARAGOD DIST.
BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER
RESPONDENT(S):
GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.R. SABU FOR R1 AND R4
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 2669/2005
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
| EXHIBIT P1 | : | TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 19.01.2005. |
|---|---|---|
| EXHIBIT P2 | : | TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 20.01.2005. |
| EXHIBIT P3 | : | TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 20.01.2005. |
| EXHIBIT P4 | : | TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19.01.2005 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE CHIEF SECRETARY. |
/TRUE COPY/
P.A. TO JUDGE.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
-----------------------------------------
WP(C) NO. 2669 OF 2005
Dated this the 11th day of October, 2011.
JUDGMENT
The vehicle bearing No. KL-14/A-3373 belonging to the petitioner was intercepted by the 3rd respondent Sub Collector on 17.01.2005, alleging illegal transportation of river sand, which culminated in Ext.P1 order, whereby the petitioner was given liberty to have the vehicle redeemed on payment of a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the River Management Fund; lest further coercive proceedings should follow to have the vehicle sold in public auction. Pursuant to the above order, the petitioner remitted the said amount, whereby the vehicle was ordered to be released to the petitioner as borne by Ext.P3 communication sent by the concerned RDO to the Sub Inspector of Police, Hosdurg Police station. It was after redeeming the vehicle, that the petitioner approached this Court by filing the above writ Petition, stating that Ext.P1 order passed by the second respondent is not correct or sustainable on various grounds.
2
WP(C) No. 2669/2005
as the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents in detail.
3
WP(C) No. 2669/2005
considered the matter and permitted the petitioner to satisfy a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the River Management Fund, which in turn is satisfied by the petitioner. The idea and understanding of the petitioner as to the alleged imposition of 'fine' as per Ext.P1 and P3 are quite wrong and unfounded; as no such 'fine' has been imposed as per Ext.P1. This Court finds no reason to interfere.
The Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed accordingly.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE
dnc
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the order requiring payment to the River Management Fund to redeem a confiscated vehicle requires interference.
VALSAMMA JOSEPH
THE STATE OF KERALA
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD
SUB COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD
CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, HOSDURG
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
