Kerala High Court
V.P.Vijayan vs The District Collector, ... on 17 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 26TH BHADRA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 38298 OF 2008
PETITIONER/S:
V.P.VIJAYAN
VALPARAMBAN HOUSE, PANAYI, ANAKKAYAM PO, VENGALLOOR.
BY ADV SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM
COLLECTORATE.
2 THE TAHSILDAR TALUK OFFICE
ERANAD, MANJERI.
3 SECRETARY KAVANOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN, SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 38298 OF 2008
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
===================
WP(C) No. 38298 OF 2008
===================
Dated this the 17th day of September 2021
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the registered owner of KL-10/Z 6537
which is a medium goods vehicle tipper. It is the case of
the petitioner that on 29.09.2008 the Panchayat issued
Ext.P1 pass in the prescribed form for the transportation of
sand from Puthenpeedika Kadavu. The vehicle was loaded
with sand at 12.09 p.m., and the validity of the pass is 3 1/2
hours i.e. up to 3.39 p.m. When the vehicle was
proceeding from Puthenpeedika Kadavu to Angadi i.e.
about 1 1/2 kms, according to the petitioner, due to the
mechanical defects the vehicle could not move. Thereafter
the defect was rectified and the vehicle was moved only at
2.00 p.m. At that time, the 2 nd respondent seized the
vehicle. It is the case of the petitioner that, the same was
WP(C) NO. 38298 OF 2008
at 2.00 p.m. but in the scene mahazar it is stated that, it is
3.00 p.m. The vehicle was produced before the
jurisdictional court and the vehicle has been released to
the petitioner by remitting Rs. 25,000/- as evident by
Ext.P3. Thereafter, the 1st respondent issued notice under
Rules 27 and 28 of the Protection of River Banks and
Regulation of Removal of Sand Rules, 2002 (for short
'Rules 2002') seeking explanation and the petitioner
submitted his detailed explanation showing all the above
facts. Ext. P5 is the explanation submitted by the
petitioner. Thereafter, Ext.P6 order is passed by the 1 st
respondent on 27.11.2008 directing the petitioner to remit
an amount of Rs. 2 lakh as the vaule of the vehicle, in lieu
of confiscating the vehicle. Aggrieved by Ext.P6 this writ
petition is filed.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Government Pleader. I also heard the learned
counsel for the 3rd respondent.
WP(C) NO. 38298 OF 2008
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated
his contention in the writ petition. The learned counsel for
the petitioner submitted that, Ext.P6 is an order without
considering the contentions raised by the petitioner in
Ext.P5. The learned counsel submitted that, the petitioner
was having valid pass as evident by Ext.P1 and the District
Collector has not considered this matter in detail.
4. The learned Government Pleader justified Ext.P6
order. The learned Government Pleader submitted that, the
1st respondent considered all the matter in detail in Ext.P6
and thereafter passed the order.
5. When this writ petition came up for consideration
on 30.12.2008, this Court pass the following order.
" Admit Notice. There will be an interim
order as prayed for, on condition that the
petitioner will execute a bond agreeing to offer the
amount covered by Ext.P6 it ultimately the writ
petition is dismissed to the satisfaction of the
District Collector, Malappuram. The vehicle shall
not be transferred pending the writ petition."
6. Today the matter came up for final hearing. I
WP(C) NO. 38298 OF 2008
perused Ext.P6 order. After going through Ext.P6 order,
according to me, the contentions raised by the petitioner in
Ext.P5 is not considered by the 1st respondent in a proper
manner. Without expressing any opinion on merit, I think,
Ext.P6 order can be set aside and the 1 st respondent can be
directed to re consider the matter. The petitioner is free to
file any additional statement also before the 1 st respondent
to substantiate his case.
Therefore this writ petition is allowed in the following
manner.
1. Ext.P6 order is set as side.
2. The 1st respondent is directed to reconsider the
matter, in the light of Ext.P5 explanation and pass
appropriate orders in accordance to law, after giving an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
3. The 1st respondent will pass appropriate orders
WP(C) NO. 38298 OF 2008
as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
4. The interim order passed by this Court will
continue till final order is passed by the 1st respondent.
(Sd/-)
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
LU
WP(C) NO. 38298 OF 2008
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 38298/2008
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PASS NO. 2313- BOOK
NO. 47 DATED 29.09.2009 ISSUED BY
KAVANOOR PANCHAYATH
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR DATED
29.09.2008 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT EVIDENCING
REMITTANCE OF THE AMOUNT BEFORE THE
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
01.11.2008 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT
DATED 17.11.2008
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT
NO.P.4.48754/2008 DATED 27.11.2008
// True Copy // PA to Judge
