IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2008 / 25TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 54 of 2008(F) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- SINEESH.K.S., S/O. SREEDHARAN, KOCHERIL HOUSE, BRAHMAMANGALAM VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,PIN 686 614. BY ADV. SRI.VAKKOM N.VIJAYAN SRI.P.ANIYAN SRI.A.S.SACHIN RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE THRIKKAKARA, POLICE STATION. 3. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. I.V. PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ========================= W.P.(C)NO.54 OF 2008 ========================= Dated this the 15th day of January 2008 JUDGMENT Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P4. Ext.P4 is an order passed by the District Collector exercising his powers under Rule 27 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Rules 2002. The contention now raised before me is that at the time of seizure, mahazar contemplated under the Act, was not prepared. A reading of Ext.P4 shows that this was not a contention that was raised before the District Collector when the petitioner was heard. Though the counsel for the petitioner tells me that this was raised in the objection that he had filed, the objection stated to have been filed is also not produced before this Court. In view of this, I am not prepared to accept the contention now raised before me. 2. The other objection that is now raised by the counsel for the petitioner is regarding the value of the lorry that is fixed. Ext.P4 itself shows that it is based on the valuation given by the Joint RTO that the demand is now made. If an expert has fixed the value and since realisation of such value is permissible in W.P.(C)54/2008 2 terms of the rules, petitioner cannot take any valid objection to that part of Ext.P4. In view of this, I am not satisfied with the contentions raised by the petitioner. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE css/