Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANTONY DOMINIC, J
MIHAD – Appellant
Versus
THE DIST. COLLECTOR – Respondent
WP(C)/32781/2007
Protection - River Banks - Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act - Rules 27, 29(8) - The court quashed the orders imposing penalty, interpreting that the provisions for seizure and violation were not met in the case at hand.
Fact of the Case:
The 1st respondent imposed a value and fine on the petitioners for allegedly violating the Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act. The vehicles in question were not seized during the alleged transportation of sand.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the vehicles were not involved in the transportation of sand at the time of the alleged violation, thus Rule 27 did not apply. Additionally, there was no evidence to support the claim of a violation of Rule 29(8).
Issues: Whether the imposition of value and fine under the Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act was justified when the vehicles were not engaged in the alleged illegal activity.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that without the vehicles being seized in connection with a violation, the imposition of penalties under the Act was not valid.
Final Decision: The court quashed the orders and disposed of the writ petitions.
J U D G M E N T
Ext.P2 order in these cases are under challenge. By these orders, 1st respondent has imposed value of Rs.35,000/- each and fine of Rs.25,000/- each on the respective petitioners in exercise of the powers under Rule 27 of the Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act and Rules, 2001. The impugned orders are identically worded and the basis of imposition of value and penalty is that the petitioners have violated Rule 29(8) of the aforesaid rules.
2. In Ext.P2 order of the District Collector it is stated that: From this, it is evident that the vehicles involved in these cases were not seized at the time when they were engaged in the transportation of river sand.
WPC Nos.32781 & 33172/07
3. Rule 27 of the rules provide that the Police or Revenue officials shall seize the vehicle used for transportation of sand in violation of the provisions of the Act and Rules. It is such vehicles, which are used for transportation and seized by the police or revenue officials which are liable for confiscation under Rule 27. If it is liable for such confiscation, then only the District Collector is authorized to levy the value and fine in lieu of such confiscation. Since it is obvious that the vehicles in these cases were not engaged in the transportation of river sand, in my view, Rule 27 is inapplicable.
4. Further, the finding that Rule 29(8) has been violated is also not borne out by the records. Rule 29(8) provides that those who purchase sand shall obtain pass and keep the same and shall not transport or keep the same at any place without the said pass. In this case, there is no allegation that the petitioners had purchased any quantity of sand from anybody. If such is the situation, I do not understand, how the 1st respondent has come to the conclusion that the petitioners have violated Rule 29(8).
WPC Nos.32781 & 33172/07
5. For these reasons, I do not find any valid reason to sustain Ext.P2 order in both the cases. Accordingly Ext.P2 order in these cases will stand quashed.
Writ petitions are disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
