IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 26TH JULY 2010 / 4TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 19992 of 2010(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ANEESH, S/O.ARAMUGHAN, KARUVADY HOUSE, ESWARAMANGALAM, PONNANI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHANGARAMKULAM POLICE STATION, CHANGARAMKULAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P. NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: shg/ S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.19992 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 26th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner's vehicle was seized on allegations of illegal transportation of river sand. That seizure has culminated in Ext.P1 final order, by which on a finding that the vehicle was used for illegal transportation of river sand in violation of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 & Rules, the petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- as value of the vehicle, towards the River Management Fund. Petitioner is challenging that order. The petitioner raises two points. First is that the finding in Ext.P1 order that the petitioner had admitted the guilt before the District Collector and requested that a small fine may be imposed is wrong and unsustainable. According to him, a Section Clerk, whose designation is known to the petitioner, informed the petitioner that if he puts his signature in a W.P.(C)No.19992 of 2010 -2- paper where the admission of guilt is recorded, there would only be a lesser amount of fine. Believing the said representation the petitioner signed the document already written by the Section Clerk concerned, which is now sought to be held against the petitioner to prove that the petitioner has admitted the guilt. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has not admitted the guilt and there was no sand in the vehicle so as to hold the petitioner guilty of illegal transportation of river sand. He also submits that, the valuation made is excessive and does not represent the market value of the vehicle. According to him, Ext.P1 does not disclose as to how the value has been arrived at. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent, wherein the allegations are sought to be controverted. It is specifically stated therein that at the time of seizure the vehicle was fully loaded with river sand and even today the vehicle is lying in the compound of the 2nd respondent with full load of river sand. The petitioner W.P.(C)No.19992 of 2010 -3- has not chosen to file a reply affidavit to controvert the same. The allegations of the petitioner is that, the petitioner was made to sign some documents by the Section Clerk is also denied. They have produced Ext.R1(a) letter from the petitioner seeking interim custody of the vehicle, wherein there is not even a whisper that the vehicle did not contain any sand. According to them, Ext.R1 (b) statement was prepared by the officer assisting the District Collector in the presence of the District Collector and the petitioner had signed the same in the presence of the District Collector voluntarily. They point out that the District Collector has specifically signed that document with an endorsement that the same has been signed in his presence. By Ext.R1(b), the petitioner specifically admits his guilt and requests that a small amount may be imposed as fine. They point out that the value of the vehicle was fixed by the Joint R.T.O., who is a competent officer to value the vehicle and therefore the contention against the valuation is also without any merit. The Respondents therefore would W.P.(C)No.19992 of 2010 -4- contend that the allegations in the writ petition are totally baseless and cannot be accepted in law. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader in Ext.R1(a) there is no contention raised by the petitioner that there was no sand in the vehicle at the time of seizure. Ext.R1(b) is admittedly signed by the petitioner. The District Collector has endorsed and signed therein that the same was signed in his presence. In that document the petitioner specifically admits his guilt. I have no material before me to enter a finding that, that document was got signed by any misrepresentation. Petitioner does not also allege any malafides against the District Collector. In the above circumstances, I am unable to accept the contention of the petitioner that the vehicle did not contain any sand and that he did not admit his guilt. As far as the valuation is concerned, in Ext.P1, it is specifically stated that the market value of the vehicle has been fixed by the Ponnani Joint Regional Transport Officer. The Joint R.T.O. is an officer W.P.(C)No.19992 of 2010 -5- competent to value motor vehicles. The petitioner has not also produced any material in support of his contention that the valuation fixed is excessive. As such, I have no material before me to find that the value fixed by the Joint Regional Transport Officer is in any way excessive. In view of the above findings, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE shg/