Petitioner challenged an order imposing a fine and direction to remit value of vehicle seized while transporting illicit river sand. Court examined delay in seizure mahazar. Petition dismissed, order confirmed, relief permitted after deduction.
Petitioner directed to pay amounts under impugned order after deducting Rs.20,000 already paid, within two months.
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 DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2017/15TH PHALGUNA, 1938
WP(C).No. 35470 of 2008 (V) ----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
JAMSHEER, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.AYAMMU, VALIYAPEEDIYAKAL HOUSE, CHAMRAVATTOM P.O., TIRUR, MALAPPURAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN SMT.K.VIDYA
RESPONDENT(S):
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TIRUR.
3. THE SECRETARY, THRIPRANGODE GRAMA PANCHAYAT, THIRUR, MALAPPURAM.
R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.REJI T.BHASKAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 35470 of 2008 (V)
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS
EXT.P1 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PASS DATED 05.09.2008
EXT.P2 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 08.09.2008, PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P3 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.27714/2008 DATED 18.09.2008
EXT.P4 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.10.2008
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P. A. TO JUDGE
Pn
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.
WP(C) No.35470 of 2008
Dated this the 6th day of March, 2017
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is impugning Ext.P4 order of the District Collector, under which he was imposed a fine of Rs.3,000/- along with a direction to remit Rs.36,000/-, being the value of the vehicle on the allegation that his vehicle bearing Registration No.KL-10/9916, was detected transporting illicit river sand. The petitioner alleges that his vehicle was never involved in such transportation and he, therefore, says that Ext.P4 has been issued under confutative considerations.
WP(C) No.35470 of 2008
2
sand illegally. He says that the transport was supported by a valid pass and that the vehicle in question was taken into custody only a day later, than the date shown in the pass. According to him, the vehicle had broken down and was being towed by another vehicle when it was taken into custody. The petitioner also contends that the seizure mahazar was not prepared in time and that it was not handed over to the District Collector or to the driver of the vehicle immediately as is warranted under Rule 27 of the Kerala Protection of River Sands and Regulation of Removal of Sand Rules, 2002 [hereinafter referred to as Rules for brevity]. He also says that the vehicle was not detected with sand but that it was detained when it was being towed and that, therefore, that the rigor of Section 23 of the Kerala Protection of River Sands and Regulation of Removal of Sands Act, 2001 is not attracted.
WP(C) No.35470 of 2008
3
completely untenable. The only question now is whether the seizure was prepared in time. According to the petitioner, it was not. I see that the date of the Seizure Mahazar is 06.09.2008, which is the same date on which the vehicle was alleged to have been taken into custody. Obviously, there is no delay in preparation of the Mahazar. The petitioner's assertion that it was given to the District Collector much later and that it was not given to the driver of the vehicle would thus be the sole surviving issue that remains for examination. There is nothing on record to show when this Mahazar reached the District Collector and there is equally nothing to show that it was not given to the driver of the vehicle.
WP(C) No.35470 of 2008
4
the District Collector within a time frame, it only says immediately. The word 'immediately' is not one that can concede to a definite purport, it can only mean that it shall be done at the earliest. The unexplained delay of one month is definitely not desirable but however, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that by itself can give any relief to the petitioner.
WP(C) No.35470 of 2008
5
the amounts covered by the said order, after deducting the amount of Rs.20,000/- stated to be paid by the petitioner pursuant to the interim orders issued by this Court, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is ordered as above. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I make no order as to costs and I direct the parties to suffer their respective costs.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE.
//True Copy//
P.A. to Judge
sp/06/03/17
JAMSHEER
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
