Petitioner claims to be the registered owner of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-58-F-2588 which was seized by the 4th respondent alleging violation of the provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. This Court had passed an order dated 11/04/2013 permitting the petitioner to get his vehicle released on certain conditions. But the same has not been complied by the petitioner.
2. The main contention urged by the petitioner is that he, being the owner of the vehicle, was not heard and therefore Ext.P3 order passed by the District Collector confiscating the vehicle has to be set aside.
3. The District Collector, by Ext.P3 order, having come to a finding that the vehicle was involved in transportation of river sand without valid pass, permitted W.P.C.No.10444/13 2 release of the same on condition of the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.5,20,000/-. So far, no steps had been taken by the petitioner to get the vehicle released. Apparently, on a perusal of Ext.P3, it is clear that an Advocate Sri.K.M.Gireesh Kumar appeared on behalf of the owner or driver of the vehicle. It is admitted that there was representation on behalf of the driver who was driving the vehicle in question at the relevant time. Hence it is totally unbelievable that the owner was not informed about the same. That apart, it is indicated in Ext.P3 that notice was issued to the owner as well and it is pursuant to the same that Adv.Sri.K.M.Gireesh Kumar appeared on 23/01/2013. Hence the contention regarding violation of natural justice is also incorrect.
4. Having regard to the above factual circumstances, I do not think that the District Collector had committed any illegality or irregularity in the procedure of taking action with respect to the vehicle in question.
W.P.C.No.10444/13 3 Under these circumstances, there being no merits in the writ petition, the same is dismissed.
(sd/-) (A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE) jsr