IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 33026 of 2009(W) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ IBRAHIM KUTTY,S/O.ABDUL REHIMAN, 26 YEARS,THOTTUMUKKU-HOUSE,NADUVATHAPARA P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT.(R.C.OWNER OF KLL-2274). BY ADV. MR.SHOBY K.FRANCIS RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,COLLECTORATE,THRISSUR 2. SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PAZHAYANNOOR POLICE STATION, KUNNAMKULAM,THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. GEOLOGIST, OFFICE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY,THRISSUR. BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.P.N.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.N.RAVINDRAN,J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 33026 of 2009 - W ---------------------------------------- Dated 18th November, 2009 Judgment Ext.P2 order passed by the District Collector, Thrissur ordering confiscation of the petitioner's vehicle under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 and the Rules framed thereunder is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The petitioner does not dispute the fact that the sand transported in his vehicle was not covered by a valid pass. His only request before the District Collector was to release the vehicle by imposing a nominal amount as fine. Since the petitioner's vehicle was used to transport river sand without a valid pass, it was liable to be confiscated. The decision taken by the District Collector to confiscate his vehicle cannot therefore be said to be illegal. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the value fixed for the vehicle which is a 24 year old vehicle is exorbitant. He submits that in the insurance W.P.(C) No.33026/2009 2 policy, the estimated value of the vehicle is shown as 'zero' and therefore, the District Collector erred in fixing Rs.55,000/- as the market value of the vehicle. A copy of the policy is placed on record as Ext.P3. In my opinion, the value adopted by the insurer for determining the insurance premium cannot be termed as the market value of the vehicle. Therefore, the value estimated by the insurer for the vehicle cannot bind the District Collector. Apart from placing reliance on Ext.P3 policy of insurance, the petitioner has not produced any cogent material to show that the value fixed by the Joint Regional Transport Officer, Wadakkancherry which was adopted by the District Collector is exorbitant. I therefore find no merit in the challenge to Ext.P2. 4. Lastly, the learned counsel submitted that as the vehicle is liable to be sold in public auction if the petitioner does not remit the sum of Rs.55,000/-, the respondents may be directed to sell the vehicle in public auction at the earliest and to permit him to participate in the auction. No provision of the Act or the Rules prohibiting the owner of the vehicle from W.P.(C) No.33026/2009 3 participating in the auction was brought to my notice. In such circumstances, while dismissing the writ petition, I direct the respondents to take steps to sell the vehicle described in Ext.P2 order in public auction within one month from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment before the District Collector, Thrissur. The authority conducting the auction shall permit the petitioner to participate in the auction if he is willing to abide by the terms and conditions of the auction. P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge cms