Partly allowed

Jaffar P. v. the District Collector

Kerala HC23 Jun 2016WP(C)/3799/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order imposing a fine of Rs. 50,000 and forfeiture of a vehicle for illegal sand transport. The Court held that the fine limit under section 20 of the Act is Rs. 25,000. The order was upheld subject to reducing the fine to Rs. 25,000.

What did the court decide?

The order imposing a fine of Rs. 50,000 is modified to reduce the fine to Rs. 25,000; total amount payable is Rs. 60,000.

Jaffar P. Vs the District Collector — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2016/2ND ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 3799 of 2008 (B)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

JAFFAR P., S/O.PARIKUTTY, VALAPPIL HOUSE, THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM.

¶11

2. THE TAHSILDAR, TIRURANGADI,TIRURANGADI TALUK,

¶12

MALAPPURAM.

¶13

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. ABHIJETT LESSLIE

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

sts

¶16

WP(C).NO.3799/2008

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶19

P1 COPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHAZAR DATED 23/08/2007

¶20

P2 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 13/04/2007

¶21

P3 COPY OF THE REPLY FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 26/09/2007

¶22

P4 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30/11/2007

¶23

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

P.V.ASHA, J.

W.P.(C) No.3799 of 2008

¶29

Dated this the 23^rd day of June, 2016

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

The petitioner, whose vehicle was seized while he was engaged in transporting river sand, is challenging Ext.P4 order passed by the District Collector, by which he was directed to remit a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) towards fine along with a sum of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty thousand only) which is assessed as the value of the vehicle. Out of this, the petitioner had remitted a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) on the basis of the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.26015 of 2007 and therefore he was directed to remit the balance amount of Rs.85,000/- (Rupees Eighty five thousand only).

¶32

The petitioner contends that seizure of his vehicle as well as the order passed by the District Collector were illegal and that he was transporting sand with the pass issued to one Sri.Mohammed and the same was being transported to the house of Sri.Vinod on the basis of the pass issued by the Thenhippalam Panchayat.

¶33

I heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader. The respondents have not filed any counter affidavit. However, from Ext.P4 order passed by the

¶34

:2:

¶35

W.P.(C) No.3799 of 2008

¶36

District Collector, it is seen that the vehicle bearing No.KL-10/L 4716 was seized, while it was involved in transporting sand. More over, the vehicle was seized by the squad under the Tahsildar, Thirurangadi and on the basis of the seizure mahazar, notice was issued to the petitioner who is the owner of the vehicle and he was heard on 26.8.2007. It is also stated that the vehicle was used for transportation of sand violating the provisions contained in rule 29(8) of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Removal of Sand Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'). The District Collector thereupon directed that a sum of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty thousand only) which was assessed as the value of the vehicle as well as a fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) should be remitted to the River Management Fund as provided under rule 27(3) of the Rules.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the judgment in Sub Divisional Magistrate V. Pratheeshkumar (2015 (3) KLT 448) pointed out that the amount of fine which can be fixed under rule 27 (3) of the Rules cannot exceed Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only). In this case, it is seen that, the fine fixed is Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only). In paragraph 19 of the judgment in Sub Divisional Magistrate V. Pratheeshkumar (supra) , the Division Bench of this Court after analysing the provisions

¶38

W.P.(C) No.3799 of 2008

¶39

contained in rule 27(3) as well as section 20 of the Act held that section 20 of the Act contemplate punishment with fine which can extend to Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) and therefore the fine cannot exceed Rs.25000/-. Under the above circumstances, Ext.P4 order passed by the District Collector is upheld except to the extent of directing payment of fine of Rs.50,000/(Rupees Fifty thousand only). Fine shall be limited to Rs.25,000/(Rupees Twenty five thousand only) and the total amount liable to be paid by the petitioner will then come to Rs.60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand only).

¶40

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

P.V.ASHA JUDGE

¶43

rkc

Jaffar P. v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaffar P. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.J.Yesudas Vs R.Sunilkumar

Anil Kumar T.V. Vs the Kerala Public Service Commission &

Kumaresan Vs District Collector,Thiruvananthapuram

Sugunasekhara Vs State of Kerala

C.G.Narayanan Vs State of Kerala and Others

T.Ashraf Vs the District Registrar