IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2009 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 36356 of 2009(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- PUSHPALATHA, JAYATHARAM VEEDU, ARUVAPPULAM, ARUVAPPULAM VILLAGE, KONNI, PATHANANMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMOOTTILL RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ADOOR. 3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KONNI. 4. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY MR. P.NARAYANAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rkc P.N.RAVINDRAN,J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 36356 of 2009 - L ---------------------------------------- Dated 21st December, 2009 Judgment The petitioner is the registered owner of a goods vehicle bearing registration No.KL/10X-5535. The said vehicle was seized by the third respondent on 25.8.2009 on the allegation that it was used to transport river sand without a valid pass. A report was thereupon submitted to the District Collector, Pathanamthitta. The petitioner thereafter moved the District Collector seeking interim custody of his vehicle. By Ext.P1 order passed on 12.10.2009, the District Collector ordered confiscation of the vehicle. The District Collector however directed that in the event of the petitioner paying the value fixed for the vehicle, the vehicle shall be released to her. The terms and conditions for such release were also set out therein. The District Collector did not however fix the value of the vehicle. Instead he directed the Regional Transport Officer, Pathanamthitta to assess the value of the vehicle and to inform the Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoor. The grievance W.P.(C) No.36356/2009 2 voiced by the petitioner in this writ petition is that though more than two months have passed after Ext.P1 order was passed, till date, the Regional Transport Officer, Pathanamthitta has not assessed the value of the vehicle and communicated it to the Revenue Divisional Officer. She submits that in such circumstances, she is not in a position either to challenge Ext.P1 or to take custody of the vehicle. 2. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on both sides. A reading of Ext.P1 indicates that it is a final order. However, the value fixed for the vehicle is not discernible therefrom. Under section 27 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001, the owner is entitled to obtain release of the vehicle if he remits the amount fixed by the District Collector as the value of the vehicle. Since the District Collector has not fixed the value of the vehicle when he passed Ext.P1 order, the petitioner cannot pay the amount fixed as the value of the vehicle and obtain release of the vehicle. The petitioner is thereby put to serious prejudice. W.P.(C) No.36356/2009 3 I accordingly dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the District Collector to pass a revised final order in the matter fixing the value of the vehicle involved in the proceedings. The District Collector shall before passing orders as directed above, afford the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Revised final orders in the matter shall be passed within one month from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment before the District Collector. The District Collector shall after a revised final order is passed communicate a copy thereof to the petitioner. If the petitioner is aggrieved thereby, it will be open to her to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings. P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge vaa