IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 13TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 24TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 4799 of 2009(U) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- FAISAL BABU, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. ALAVI, PULITHARA HOUSE, SOUTH PANG.P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PERITHALMANNA. MR.P.N.SANTHOSH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.4799 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 13th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T Ext.P2 order is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. Proceedings were initiated against the petitioner's vehicle bearing Regn.No.KL-53/604, a 2006 model Tata 407 mini lorry. The allegation was that the vehicle was used for unauthorised transportation of river sand. 3. The 2nd respondent initiated proceedings and issued notice to the petitioner. Despite the service of notice, the petitioner did not appear, and nor did he make an application for adjournment. In his absence, on the materials available, the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P2 concluding that the vehicle in question was liable for confiscation as provided under the Act and on that basis, directed the petitioner to remit Rs.1,75,000/- being its value towards the River Management Fund. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was away at Bangalore, and that it was therefore that he could not appear for the hearing. It may be true that the petitioner WP(C) No.4799/2009 -2- was away from the station. But, however, having regard to the admitted fact that notice of hearing was served on him, he could have at least made an application for adjournment. In this case, not only that was not done, but even an explanation is not forthcoming. Such being his conduct, the petitioner cannot challenge Ext.P2. 5. In so far as the fixation of the value is concerned, the vehicle being a 2006 model mini lorry and as the valuation is done by the Motor Vehicles Department, I do not find any arbitrariness or perversity in the value fixed. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg