Dismissed

C.P.Ashraf v. the District Collector

Kerala HC22 Jun 2012WP(C)/7942/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging an order of confiscation of a vehicle for unauthorized river sand transportation under the Kerala Protection of River Banks Act, 2001, the Court held that since no pass was produced and no proof of domestic collection was submitted, the District Collector's order stood. The petition was dismissed with no costs.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the confiscation order of the vehicle was dismissed. No costs awarded.

C.P.Ashraf Vs the District Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2012/1ST ASHADHA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 7942 of 2009 (K)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

C.P.ASHRAF , S/O MOIDUPPA, CHOLAKKAPALLIYALIL VEEDU, P.O.PALATHOL, ELAMKULAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.DEVIDAS.U.K.

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,MALAPPURAM.

¶11

2. THE THAHASILDAR, PERITHALMANNA.

¶12

R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.C. VINCENT.

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

W.P.(C).NO.7942/2009-K:

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT:

¶17

EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DTD. 18/12/2008.

¶18

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

Prv.

T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

¶23

W.P.(C). No.7942/2009-K

¶24

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2012

¶25

J U D G M E N T

¶26

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging Ext.P1 order passed by the District Collector whereby confiscation proceedings have been ordered on the vehicle KL-7-G-6231 under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

¶28

It is the case of the petitioner that he has not violated the provisions of the Act and the vehicle was seized when it was used for transportation of river sand for domestic purpose from one house to another house. Accordingly, he maintains the stand that the sand was not collected from any kadavu or river.

¶29

A reading of the order passed by the District Collector will show that sand was transported without any pass and nothing has been produced by the petitioner to sustain the contentions also. Therefore, I do not find any reason to set aside Ext.P1 order. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)

¶32

ms

C.P.Ashraf v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.P.Ashraf v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aswathy Krishnan Vs Sree Narayana College for Women

Jagadeesh Chandra Vs State of Kerala

Indu Raveendran Vs Union of India

Jessy Sebastian Vs C.R. Vijayanunni

M.a.Fathima Vs Kerala Financial Corporation

St. Francis Xaviour Association Vs the District Collector Ernakulam