The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P2 order passed by the 1st respondent confiscating the vehicle belonging to the petitioner on the allegation that it was engaged in the illegal transportation of river sand. In Ext.P2 order, the 1st respondent has placed reliance on a Geologist's report, a copy of which, according to the petitioner, was not served on him prior to the passing of Ext.P2 order. It is the case of the petitioner that the order of confiscation was passed despite the fact that the petitioner had produced Ext.P1 pass which showed that he was validly transporting ordinary sand in his vehicle and there was no justification on the part of the 1st respondent in passing Ext.P2 order confiscating the vehicle when the pass that was available with the petitioner clearly showed that the transportation was of ordinary sand covered by the said pass. 2. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner remitted half of the amount shown in Ext.P2, and furnished a bond with two solvent sureties for the remaining amount, as a condition for obtaining release of the vehicle that was seized. The prayer of the petitioner now is to quash Ext.P2 order.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent wherein Ext.R1(a) report of the Geologist has been produced. The said report was the basis of Ext.P2 order passed by the 1st respondent. The said report indicates that the sample that was taken from the vehicle belonging to the petitioner contained minerals like Quartz, Feldspar, Mica, heavy minerals, Clay and fragments of shells. That the Colour, texture and grain size distribution very much resembled that of sand extracted from near the bar mouth area, very close to the beach. The Geologist, therefore, concluded that the sand sample was of Riverine Origin.
4. I have heard Sri.Mohammed Sabah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as also Smt.Sunitha Vinod.K., the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.
5. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, I am of the view that insofar as, prior to passing Ext.P2 order, the 1st respondent did not furnish a copy of the Geologist's report, on which he sought to place reliance, to the petitioner thereby denying the petitioner an opportunity to controvert the said report, the order cannot be said to be one that complied with the requirements of natural justice. The 1st respondent ought to have furnished a copy of the Geologist's report to the petitioner prior to drawing an adverse inference against him with regard to the nature of the sand that was transported in the petitioner's vehicle. In that view of the matter, I quash Ext.P2 order of the 1st respondent and direct him to reconsider the matter after affording the petitioner an opportunity of controverting the contents of Ext.R1(a) report of the Geologist. The 1st respondent shall pass fresh orders in the matter within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The amounts paid by the petitioner as a condition for obtaining release of the vehicle shall be kept with the respondents pending fresh orders to be passed by the District Collector in the matter and the appropriation of the said amount by the respondents will be based on the outcome of the proceedings before the 1st respondent.
With these directions, the writ petition is disposed.
prp A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE