IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2009 / 8TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 20876 of 2009(D) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- SHAMEER.V.P., S/O.BEERANKUTTY, VILANJIPULAN HOUSE, VATTALOOR P.O., CHERUKULAMBA, MALAPPURAM. BY ADVS. MR.ESM.KABEER, MR.ABDUL MAJEED.N. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, PERINTHALMANNA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. P. NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/07/2009 ALONG WITH WPC.NO.20877 OF 2009 AND WPC. NO.20882 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C)s.20876, 20877 & 20882/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 30th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Almost identical contentions have been taken up in the writ petitions and the orders impugned are also similar. Therefore, they have been taken up for consideration together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. I will refer to the facts in Writ Petition No.20876/2009 and the disposal of the same would govern the other writ petitions also. 2. Petitioner is the owner of a vehicle bearing registration No.KL-17-C 8217. Vehicle was taken into custody by the 2nd respondent on the ground that it was involved in unauthorised transportation of sand. The matter was referred to the 1st respondent, District Collector, who, after hearing the parties, passed an order on 22.5.2009 finding that the vehicle has been used for unauthorised sand transportation. Therefore, the petitioner is liable to pay an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- as value of the vehicle towards the River Management Fund. This order has been challenged in this writ petition. W.P.(C).20876/09 & Connected Cases 2 3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Government Pleader also. 4. As pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, the vehicle was seized with sand and it is clear that the transportation was not accompanied by a pass. There is no case in the writ petition also that the transportation of sand was authorized by a pass as such. If that be so, the finding that the transportation of river sand in the vehicle was unauthorized, does not warrant any interference as such. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if this be so, the value of the vehicle has been fixed at the higher side. Nor was he heard, before the value was fixed. At any rate, according to the petitioner, it was not necessary to direct the petitioner to remit an amount equivalent to the value of the vehicle in its entirety, to enable the redemption of the vehicle as such. 6. I find force in the submission. It is necessary that the vehicle's value is to be fixed after notice to the petitioner. It W.P.(C).20876/09 & Connected Cases 3 is upto the District Collector to consider whether invariably there should be a direction to remit an amount equivalent to the value of the vehicle itself in all cases, wherein orders are passed under Section 23 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. This is a matter requiring exercise judicious discretion. Accordingly, Ext.P1 orders in these writ petitions are set aside, to the limited extent as indicated above. But it is made clear that the finding by the District Collector in all these cases that the vehicles were involved in unauthorised transportation of river sand, is affirmed. District Collector shall pass revised orders as regards the value of the vehicle after calling for a report from the valuer in the Motor Vehicles Department. Such valuation shall be done after notice to the petitioner. Revised orders shall be passed within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs