Koshy, J.

These cases were referred to the Division Bench mainly to consider the question regarding the power of the District Collector to confiscate the vehicle involved in illicit transportation of river sand under the provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). It is the contention of the petitioners that there is no valid provision conferring jurisdiction on the District Collector to confiscate the vehicle involved in such illicit transportation of river sand and proceedings of confiscation and conditional releasing of the same are all invalid. Already with regard to the mining and transportation of sand, there are ample laws like the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and Rules made thereunder. However, in view of the environmental problems created by indiscriminate mining of sand, in addition to the above, this Act was also brought into force by the Legislature. The objects and preamble of the Act read as follows:

"An Act to protect river banks and river beds from large scale dredging of river sand and to protect their biophysical environment system and regulate the removal of river sand and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

Preamble.-WHEREAS it has come to the notice of the Government that indiscriminate and uncontrolled removal of sand from the rivers cause large scale river bank sliding and loss of property;

AND WHEREAS large scale dredging of river sand also disturb the biophysical environment system of the river in different degrees;

AND WHEREAS due to the executive regulatory orders in force, complaints have been received regarding the hardship to the employees engaged in construction works;

AND WHEREAS, in the public interest, it is expedient to provide for regulatory measures for the protection of river banks and removal of sand from rivers;"

It is true that while interpreting the provisions of the Act, if there is any ambiguity or difficulty, intention of legislature etc. have to be gathered from the entire circumstances. The Act was enacted in Malayalam and thereafter it was translated and English translation was also published. Under Article 348(3) of the Constitution of India State Government can pass enactments in a language other than English. Article 348(3) reads as follows:

"348. Language to be used in the Supreme Court and in the High Courts and for Acts, Bills, etc.-

xx xx xx

(3) Notwithstanding anything in sub-clause (b) of clause (1), where the Legislature of a State has prescribed any language other than the English language for use in Bills introduced in, or Acts passed by, the Legislature of the State or in Ordinances promulgated by the Governor of the State or in any order, rule, regulation or bye-law referred to in paragraph (iii) of that sub-clause, a translation of the same in the English language published under the authority of the Governor of the State in the Official Gazette of that State shall be deemed to be the authoritative text thereof in the English language under this article."

In view of the above provision, in the case of conflicts between the Non-English version and English version, English version will be authoritative text in the English language, but, State Government has power to adopt the language other than English and such text also operates as authoritative text and in case of conflict in English version, non-English version can be referred to as an external aid to interpret. Unlike the acts of Parliament, when Legislature passes the Act in the regional language and later it is translated in English, version in regional language, which was considered in the Legislature assumes more importance. Section 20 of the Act provides for penalty like imprisonment and fine to be imposed for the contravention of the provisions of the Act. Section 24 states that the offences are cognizable and Section 25 provides who is authorised to file complain