IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 14TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 23RD BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 27303 of 2010(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SUBHA SOURABHAN, A-12/236, SURABHI HOUSE, CHEMBUMUKKU, THRIKKAKARA, KAKKANADU P.O., ERNAKULAM-682 030. BY ADV. SRI.P.A.MUJEEB RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY EXCISE COMMISSIONER, EXCISE DIVISION OFFICE, IDUKKI, THODUPUZHA-685585. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 27303 OF 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 14thday of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner, who is the registered owner of a motor vehicle bearing Reg. No.KL-07/BG-1120, has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P4 order passed by the second respondent whereby the second respondent granted interim custody of the said vehicle to him on the petitioner depositing the sum of Rs.1,95,000/- in the Treasury Savings Account and depositing the receipt with the Deputy Excise Commissioner, Idukki. It is contended that the value fixed by the second respondent for the petitioner's vehicle is exorbitant. 2. It is evident from Ext.P1, copy of the certificate of registration, that the petitioner purchased a brand new car on 24.8.2007. The petitioner's car is only three years old. The price of a WAGONR Car is more than Rs.3.5 lakhs. It cannot therefore be said that the value fixed by the second respondent for the petitioner's car, in Ext.P4 is exorbitant. I therefore find no grounds to interfere with Ext.P4. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps WPC No. 2