IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 4TH JULY 2008 / 13TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 13222 of 2004(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ V.P.GOPI, S/O.PARAMESWARAN, AGED 45, VADAKATH HOUSE, VELLAVOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS SRI.LEJOY V. RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANIMALA POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No.13222/2004 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATTE OF REGISTRATION OF THE VEHILCE BEARING REG.NO.KL-05/J 6328. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE FINAL ADJUDICATION ORDER NO.E10-54541/03 DATED 10.3.2004 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.13222 OF 2004 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ The petitioner is the registered owner of a mini lorry bearing registration No.KL-05/J-6328. The said vehicle was seized, by the 2nd respondent, Sub Inspector of Police, on 10.12.2003 at about 6.p.m., on the ground that it was found transporting river sand without any permit. The seized vehicle was released to the petitioner, pursuant to the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.39234/2003, subject to the condition that he remits Rs.7,500/-. The release of the vehicle was pending consideration of the matter by the District Collector. After hearing the petitioner, the District Collector directed the petitioner to remit the price of the vehicle which is fixed as Rs.2,50,000/- and also a fine of Rs.15,000/-. The order further directs the petitioner to remit a total fine of Rs.2,65,000/-. 2. The petitioner attacks the said order on various grounds. It is contended that the impugned order does not say anything about confiscation. He has been asked to pay W.P.(C) No.13222/2004 2 Rs.2,65,000/- as fine. The District Collector has no power or authority to impose any fine, only the competent court can do that and the maximum fine amount that can be imposed by the court is limited to Rs.25,000/-. Therefore, the impugned order is bad, it is submitted. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. The learned Government Pleader submitted that though the impugned order is not happily worded, it should be taken as an order confiscating the vehicle and permitting the petitioner to pay the value of the vehicle. In view of confiscation, fine amount is only Rs.25,000/-. 4. When the officers are dealing with the property of citizens, some more care and caution is required. A person's property can be seized or confiscated only with the authority of law and such power has to be exercised strictly within the four corners of law conferring such power. A reading of the impugned order would show that the Collector has imposed a total fine of Rs.2,65,000/- on the petitioner. As rightly W.P.(C) No.13222/2004 3 pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no mention about the word confiscation in it. 5. In view of the above position, Ext.P2 order is quashed. The matter is remitted to the District Collector for fresh disposal of the matter, in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, within three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent, within one month from today. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) ps