Jayaprakash vs The District Collector, Palakkad, PIN: 678 001, The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ottappalam, Palakkad District, PIN: 679 101 and The Sub Inspector of Police, Ottappalam, Palakkad District, PIN: 679 101

T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.—The petitioner is the registered owner of a Mini Tipper Lorry bearing registration No. KL-9W-6097 which was seized on 23.11.2010 alleging unauthorized transportation of river sand. It appears that the Sub Divisional Magistrate passed an order directing confiscation of the vehicle against which the petitioner filed a representation before the District Collector and the District Collector as per order dated 06.08.2011 remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The petitioner points out that Ext.P3 is the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate after remand. In the order Ext.P3, it is stated that on inspecting the vehicle it was found that more than ten bags of sand were in the vehicle. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the allegation actually raised was that the vehicle carried 350 bags of sand. Therefore, in the light of the above finding, the vehicle cannot be confiscated.

One of the aspects to be considered is whether the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate as per Ext.P3 can survive in the light of the fact that the said order is dated 31.10.2011 and as on the said date, the Ordinance empowering the Sub Divisional Magistrate to adjudicate the matter, as evident from the decision of this Court in Raju vs. Circle Inspector (2012 (2) KLT 350), has lapsed. Therefore, the proper authority to finalise the proceedings is the District Collector. The order passed by the District Collector remanding the matter has been produced by the learned Government Pleader as Annexure R1(a). The same is dated 06.08.2011 and as on that date also, the Sub Divisional Magistrate was not the proper authority. Therefore, both the orders namely, the order dated 06.08.2011 passed by the District Collector and the order dated 31.10.2011 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate cannot survive. In fact, the District Collector had also entertained another revision petition as evident from Ext.P4 order. The same also cannot survive in the light of the above legal position.

Therefore, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders are quashed. There will be a direction to the District Collector to pass appropriate orders with regard to final adjudication afresh, after calling for the records from the Sub Divisional Magistrate and after hearing the petitioner, within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.