The court dismissed a writ petition challenging the confiscation of a vehicle used for illegal river sand transportation. It held that the petitioner was heard and no valid claim of possessing a pass was made.
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 A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JULY 2017/30TH ASHADHA, 1939
WP(C).No. 4434 of 2012 (D)
PETITIONER(S):
MUSTHAFA,
AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. BEERAN, RESIDING AT H .NO. 06/635, ALUNKAL HOUSE, PERUNTHALLOOR P.O., THRIPRANGODE BP ANGADI, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN SRI.P.G.SURESH SMT.K.VIDYA SRI.RAJAN VISHNURAJ
RESPONDENT(S):
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676505.
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALPAKANCHERY, MALAPPURAM-676 551.
3. THE RDO, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 101.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.RON BASTIAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-07-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
TS
WP(C).No. 4434 of 2012 (D)
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1:- THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RC PARTICULARS OF THE VEHICLE BEARING REGN. NO.KL-10 R 458.
EXHIBIT P3:- A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF REVISION PETITION,PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS - NIL
/TRUE COPY/
PS TO JUDGE
TS
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
=========================
W.P.(C).No.4434/2012
Dated this the 21st day of July, 2017
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner approached this court challenging Exhibit P2 order
issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tirur, passed under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. The petitioner's vehicle bearing registration No. KL-10/R-458 was seized for illegal transportation of river sand. It was found that it was transported without pass. Accordingly, the vehicle was ordered to be confiscated. The petitioner’s case is that he was not given sufficient opportunity in the matter. It is to be noted that the petitioner has no case that he was having any pass at the relevant time. It is also seen from the impugned order that the petitioner was heard in the matter. In such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE
ms
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned order of confiscation of the petitioner's vehicle for illegal transportation of river sand without a pass should be interfered with.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
MUSTHAFA
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALPAKANCHERY, MALAPPURAM
THE RDO, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
