IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2009 / 3RD MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 440 of 2009(B) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER : ----------------------- PRASHANTH, S/O.KUTTAPPAN, MALEERITHAZHAM HOUSE,FEROKE COLLEGE ROAD,RAMANATTUKARA,KOZHIKODE BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS : ------------------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE. 2. RAMANATTUKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, RAMANATTUKARA, KOZHIKODE. 3. JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT 'D' SECTION, COLLECTORATE, KOZHIKODE. BY SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 440 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT Exhibit P4 order is under challenge. 2. Petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration no.KL-11 AA/4128, which was seized on 20/11/2008 at a place called Paruthippara, while attempting to unload river sand. A reading of Exhibit P4 shows that as per pass issued, the consignment was to be delivered at a place called, Kuttalangadi and that the petitioner was taking a route different from the normal route and was attempting to unload the river sand at Paruthippara. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the sand was to be transported from Amminjath Kadavu to Kuttalangadi, it was open to the petitioner to take any route through which the destination can be reached. This contention may be factually correct. But the fact remains in Exhibit P4, it is stated that the petitioner was attempting to unload the river sand at Paruthippara. If that be so, the seizure and proceedings initiated against the petitioner cannot be faulted. W.P.(C) No. 440 /2009 2 4. Yet another aspect which needs to be noticed from Exhibit P4 is that none of the factual finding in Exhibit P4 were under dispute during the course of enquiry which the Collector has held. In the circumstances, finding in Exhibit P4 are unassailable. 5. The counsel for the petitioner then raised objection regarding the fine that has been imposed. According to the petitioner there is no basis for value fixed and there is no legal sanction for fine imposed. The value was fixed on the basis of valuation done by the Motor Vehicle Department . If that be so this court will not be justified in interfering with the valuation done. 6. However, having regard to the facts and circumstance of the case, I direct that if the petitioner remits the value fixed in Exhibit P4, the vehicle will be released. Writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm