Rafeek vs The District Collector, The C.I. of Police and The S.I. of Police

Antony Dominic, J.—Petitioner challenges Ext.P6 order passed by the 1st Respondent exercising powers under Kerala Protection of River

Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. Petitioner is the registered owner of a tipper lorry bearing registration No. KL-2/V-1998.

On 9.4.2009, the 2nd Respondent seized the vehicle on the allegation that the lorry was used for transportation of river sand, in violation of the

provisions of the Act. The matter was reported to the 1st Respondent.

The 1st Respondent issued notice to the Petitioner and heard him on 24.6.2009. Thereafter, Ext.P6 order was issued, holding that the vehicle

was used for illegal transportation of river sand and that the same was liable for confiscation. There was also ordered that if the Petitioner remits

Rs. 5,50,000/- being the value of the vehicle fixed by the Joint Regional Transport Officer, the vehicle will be released. This is the order which is

under challenge.

According to the counsel, the sand was purchased as per Ext.P2 invoice and it was transported on the strength of Ext.P3 delivery note. It is his

contention that though these documents were made available to the District Collector, he passed Ext.P6 order without adverting to Ext.P2 or

Ext.P3.

However, both in Ext.P6 and in the counter affidavit filed in this writ petition the categorical averment made is that the Petitioner did not produce

any document legitimising the transportation. Further, the Petitioner has not produced any evidence to substantiate his contention that these

documents were produced before the District Collector. That apart, the learned Government Pleader, who was obtained original files also referred

me to the statement given by the driver of the vehicle at the time when the vehicle was seized, which shows that the driver had no case that he was

in possession of Ext.P2 or Ext.P3 at the time of the seizure of the vehicle. Further, the statement filed by the Petitioner before the 1st Respondent,

also shows that the Petitioner did not refer to either Ext.P2 or Ext.P3. Thus the factual findings in Ext.P6 and the averments in the counter affidavit

to prove that the Petitioner did not produce Ext.P2 or Ext.P3 at any time before the 1st Respondent.

That apart, counter affidavit also refers to the amendment to Rule 38-B of the Tamilnadu Miner Mineral Concession Rules which prohibits

transportation of river sand to out side the State. That amendment came into force with effect from 25.8.2006 and if that be so, theory of the

Petitioner that the sand was originally brought by his vendor from TamilNadu is unbelievable. That apart, even if it is resumed that the sand was

purchased by the Petitioner, the Petitioner has not produced any permit obtained from KMM Rules, which alone legitimizes transportation of river

sand. In view of these facts, the findings of the District Collector that the vehicle in question was used for unauthorised transportation of river sand

cannot be faulted.

Then what remains is the correctness of the value of the vehicle that is fixed in Ext.P6. Reading of Ext.P6 shows that the District Collector got

the value of the vehicle fixed by the Joint Regional Transport Officer and it is based on such fixation, that value ordered to be remitted by the

Petitioner. Nobody can dispute the competence of the Joint Regional Transport Officer to fix the value of the vehicle. Further there is also no

material to conclude that the valuation done is vitiated for any reason.

Writ petition is only to be dismissed and I do so.