WP(C).No.5564/2006 is filed challenging Ext.P2 containing the decision of the District Collector imposing a fine of Rs.50,000/- on the petitioner, under the Kerala River Banks’ Protection and Regulation of Sand Mining Act, 2001, hereinafter referred to as the “River Act” and the Rules framed thereunder, namely the Kerala River Banks’ Protection and Regulation of Sand Mining Rules, 2002, hereinafter referred to as the “River Rules”. The said Act and the Rules provide, among other things, a mechanism to save and preserve the river banks by preventing uncontrolled mining of river sand, which adversely affects the environment and leads to depletion of natural wealth and resources.

2. The petitioner’s case is that he is the ‘agreement owner’ of the vehicle mentioned in Ext.P2; that on 19-1-2006, his driver purchased sand from one Sri. A. Nandakumar, a licensed dealer of sand in Konnikara; that the said dealer issued Ext.P1 cash memorandum; that while the said vehicle was proceeding from North Paravur to Kochi through the Paravur-Varapuzha Road, the second respondent, Additional Tahsildar, Kodungallor, intercepted that vehicle at Padanna and took the vehicle into custody alleging that it contained unauthorised load of sand; that on being handed over by the second respondent, the said vehicle is lying in the premises of Kodungalloor Police Station under the control of the third respondent Sub Inspector; that the petitioner ultimately received Ext.P2 decision of the first respondent District Collector directing him to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- for the release of the vehicle; and that the said action was taken on the report of the Tahsildar, without obtaining report from the Department of Mining and Geology regarding the genuineness of Ext.P1 and without allowing the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. He accordingly impeaches Ext.P2.

3. Though it is not so pleaded in the writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the petitioner was transporting only (Karamanal) thereby meaning, sand which is not river sand but having been mined out from land, other than river bed. In support of the said contention, he relied on Ext.P1, shown to be one issued under the provisions of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967. On the face of it, Ext.P1 shows that it is issued for (Karamanal) to one Siddique by one A. Nandakumar, whose licence number, as the dealer, is also shown in the said document. Accordingly, it is urged that the River Act and the River Rules do not apply. It is further urged that the imposition of Rs.50,000/- as fine is an exorbitant one, having regard to the yardstick as to the imposition of fine in the nearby districts.

4. When WP(C).No.5564/2006 was being heard at the stage of admission, I came to the prima facie opinion that Ext.P1 is an interpolated document in as much as the date occurring therein is not the one that it could have originally borne. In my view, the inscription regarding the month is shown by erasing either ‘0’, ‘1’, or ‘2’ since these are the only three numbers, going by the calender that could have appeared at the space which is now shown to be blank, immediately after the inscription ‘1’ while showing the month along with the date in Ext.P1. There was also reason to apprehend that even the date could have been interpolated to make it appear as ‘19’. All that apart, the entry regarding the year which now appears to be passed off as ‘06’ is, in my view, ‘05’.

5. In the aforesaid circumstances, the District Collector was directed to ascertain the identity of the lessee and the dealer and issue notice to them requiring their appearance before this Court. The learned Government Pleader was to seek specific instructions in the matter.

6. Thereafter, the learned Government Pleader, produced the file relating to the case and submitted, on instructions, that the term of the licence that was granted to the licensee whose number is engrossed in Ext.P1, had expired by the end