Ext.P16 order passed by the 2nd respondent confiscating a vehicle belonging to the petitioner under Section 23 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) and Rule 27(3) of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules for short) is under challenge in this writ petition.

2. The vehicle in question was seized by the 4th respondent on 9.10.2006 at about 5.20 p.m. alleging transportation of 'River Sand' in violation of the Act and Rules. The vehicle was entrusted to the 2nd respondent for taking further steps. The petitioner preferred Ext.P6 objections before the 2nd respondent. Initially an order of confiscation was issued by the 2nd respondent as per Ext.P9, on 12.1.2007, directing payment of a sum of Rs.1,98,000/- towards value of the vehicle and another sum of Rs.1,98,000/- towards fine. The above said order was challenged by the petitioner in an earlier writ petition. In Ext. P10 judgment this court had set aside the order in view of the decision reported in Sanjayan v Tahsildar [2007 (4) KLT 597] settling that the District Collector has no power under the Act to impose fine on the owner of the vehicle. Thereafter the matter was considered afresh by the 2nd respondent and the order impugned in the writ petition was issued ordering confiscation of the vehicle and directing payment of a sum of Rs.1,98,000/- towards value of the vehicle and Rs. 25,000/- towards fine, under Rule 27(3).

3. In the meanwhile, interim custody of the vehicle was given to the petitioner based on an interim order passed by this court in the earlier writ petition, subject to condition of remittance of an amount of Rs.35,000/- and on furnishing an undertaking that the petitioner will not alienate or part with possession of the vehicle.

4. Petitioner raised contentions disputing the factual aspects with respect to the alleged illegal transportation of 'River Sand', at the time of seizure of the vehicle. It is contended that the transportation was on the strength of a valid pass, and therefore there was no violation of the Act and Rules. Ext.P2 'Cash Memorandum' is produced in support of the above contention. According to the petitioner the delay in transportation occurred only because the vehicle had broken down enroute and it got repaired from a workshop situated at Kottayam. Ext.P4 bill for purchase of spare parts was also produced in support of the above contention.

5. On a perusal of Ext.P5 mahazar it is evident that there was no documents available with the vehicle at the time of seizure. According to the petitioner Ext.P2 'Cash Memorandum' was shown to the authorities at the time of seizure, but the same was not accepted. But there is nothing to indicate that such a document was produced even before the 2nd respondent at the time of adjudication on the question of confiscation. The petitioner attributed failure on the part of the 2nd respondent in considering Ext.P2, which according to him was produced at the time of adjudication. It is pertinent to note that Ext.P2 'Cash Memorandum' produced by the petitioner is in a Form prescribed under the Kerala Minor Minerals Concession Rules. No details regarding the person who had issued the same is discernible from the document. Moreover Ext.P2 is not an authenticated document for transportation of 'River Sand' envisaged under the Act and the Rules. Specific allegation contained in Ext.P5 Mahazar is that the sand was loaded from a 'Kadavu' at 'Meenamthara'. Whereas contention of the petitioner is that the sand in question was transported from Vaikom to Vakathanam. The petitioner had failed in substantiating the above facts before the adjudicating authority. Therefore the factual findings arrived by the 2nd respondent in the order impugned cannot be interfered with by this court in this writ petition, merely based on Ext.P2 document, which can