IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 30515 of 2009(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ABDUL RAUF, S/O.ABDUL SALAM, 257, NIRUTTICHALIL, 5, MOORKKANAD, URANGATTIRI PANCHAYAT, ERNAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.HABEEB RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CALICUT. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KODUVALLY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.N SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 30515 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the registered owner of a tipper lorry bearing registration No. KL 07 AC 1038. The said vehicle was seized by the Sub Inspector of Police on 31.5.2009 on the allegation that it was used to transport river sand without a valid pass. The District Collector, Calicut, thereafter issued notice to the petitioner and after hearing him passed an order dated 28.7.2009 ordering confiscation of the vehicle. The District Collector however permitted the petitioner to avoid confiscation by depositing the sum of Rs.1,25,000/- in the river management fund. Ext.P3 is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The petitioner has no case that the sand transported in his vehicle was covered by a valid pass. In fact Ext.P3 discloses that at the time of hearing he had conceded that sand was transported without a valid pass. In such circumstances, the District Collector was right in ordering confiscation of the vehicle. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the value fixed for the petitioner’s vehicle is exorbitant. Ext.P1 discloses that the vehicle was registered on W.P.(C) No. 30515/09 2 22.11.2000 and that it is a nine year old vehicle. The petitioner has not however produced any material to show the invoice value of the vehicle. He has also not produced any evidence to show the amount of loan availed by him from the financier. The best evidence to show the value of the vehicle is the invoice or the amount of loan taken by the petitioner to purchase the vehicle. In the absence of any such material, it cannot be said that the value fixed by the District Collector in Ext.P3 is on the higher side. I therefore find no merit to interfere with the value fixed in Ext.P3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is depending for his livelihood on the outcome derived from hiring out the vehicle. He submits that the petitioner may be permitted to pay the sum of Rs.1,25,000/- in monthly installments. 3. The learned Government Pleader opposes the said request. In my opinion, the District Collector or the other respondents can have no grievance if payment of the sum of Rs.1,25,000/- is assured. I accordingly dispose of this writ petition with the following directions: (i) The District Collector, Calicut, shall release the vehicle W.P.(C) No. 30515/09 3 described in Ext.P3 order to the petitioner in the event of the petitioner depositing the sum of Rs.50,000/- and furnishing bank guarantee for the balance sum of Rs.75,000/-. The balance sum of Rs.75,000/- shall be paid in three equal monthly installments commencing from 15th December, 2009. (ii) If the petitioner does not pay the balance amount as directed above, on expiry of the time fixed for payment of the third installment namely 15.3.2010, it will be open to the District Collector to invoke the bank guarantee and to realise the proceeds and appropriate it towards the unpaid portion of the sum of Rs.75,000/-. (iii) If the petitioner remits the installments in time, the bank guarantee shall be returned to the petitioner on 15.3.2010 itself or immediately thereafter. The balance amount if any shall in that event be refunded to the petitioner. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE vps