IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 3RD JANUARY 2011 / 13TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 37377 of 2010(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- VIJAYANKUTTY NAIR, S/O. KRISHNAPILLAI, 796, VIJAYAKRISHNA VILASAM, CHATHANNOOR, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.VASUDEVAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM.-691001 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM.-691001 3. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KOLLAM.-691001 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POLICE STATION, PARAVOOR, KOLLAM.-691001 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 37377 of 2010 V ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the registered owner of a mini lorry bearing registration No.KL-02V-1401. On the allegation that the vehicle was used in violation of the provisions contained in the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001, the lorry was taken into custody and proceedings were initiated. The RTO assessed the value of the vehicle on two occasions. As per his first report, the value of the vehicle was assessed at `2,30,000/-. Subsequently, he gave another report assessing the value of the vehicle at `1,10,000/-. In view of the inconsistency in the two reports, the Sub Divisional Magistrate sought clarification from the RTO by his letter dated 18-10-2010. At that stage, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.34934/2010. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P3 judgment, upholding the steps taken by the RTO and directing W.P.(C) No.37377/2010 : 2 : that the matter be finalised expeditiously. According to the petitioner, immediately on production of the judgment, without awaiting for the RTO's clarification, Ext.P4 order was issued on 19-10-2010 by which the SDM ordered release of the vehicle directing the petitioner to remit 30% of `2,30,000/- and furnish security for the balance amount. Complaining that the attempt of the SDM was to overreach the orders of this Court and challenging Ext.P4, this writ petition is filed. 2. Learned Government Pleader submits that after issuing letter dated 18-10-2010 seeking clarification from the RTO, it was only in order not to cause any further delay in the matter that the SDM has issued Ext.P4 order on 19-10-2010. Learned Government Pleader further submits that subsequently the RTO, by his letter dated 10-11-2010, confirmed that the value of the vehicle is Rs.2,30,000/-. 3. Irrespective of the allegations levelled by the petitioner, in view of the RTO's communication on 10-11- 2010, confirming that the value of the vehicle is `2,30,000/-, it W.P.(C) No.37377/2010 : 3 : cannot be said that the amounts specified in Ext.P4 is arbitrary. If that be so, I see no reason to interfere with Ext.P4. Writ petition fails and it is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks