IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2009 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 9798 of 2009(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SUBHASH.P.S., AGED 33 YEARS S/O.SREEDHARAN, PONNEMBALAN HOUSE MARTHAKARA PO, THRISSUR DISTRICT RC OWNER KL-9-D-5513) BY ADV. SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, MALAPPURAM. 2. TAHSILDAR, PONNANI TALUK, PONNANI, MALAPPURAM. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHANGARAMKULAM POLICE STATION,CHANGARAMKULAM MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. GPVT. PLEADER SRI. M.A. ASIF THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.9798 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 7th day of April, 2009 J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P3, an order passed by the 1st respondent finding that the vehicle bearing Regn.No.KL-9/D-5513 of which the petitioner is the registered owner, was involved in the unauthorized transportation of river sand, and on that basis, the petitioner has been directed to remit Rs.1,50,000/- being the value of the vehicle, to the River Management Fund. 2. A reading of Ext.P3 shows that, on facts, the District Collector has found that although a pass was issued to the petitioner, misusing the same, the petitioner was transporting various truck loads of river sand. It is on that basis, the Collector has refused to act upon the pass produced by the petitioner. On going through Ext.P3 and having regard the factual conclusions as has been arrived at, I am not in a position to take a view different from what has been arrived at by the District Collector. In so far as the value of the vehicle is concerned, the contention raised was that WP(C) No.9798/2009 -2- the same has been fixed without any basis. 3. Thereupon, the case was adjourned for the learned Government Pleader to get instructions as to the basis on which the value has been fixed. He today, on instructions, submitted that the value has been fixed in consultation with the Regional Transport Officer. If that be the factual position, I cannot find fault with the value that is fixed. Therefore, on merits, I am not in a position to defer the findings arrived at in Ext.P3. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. 4. However, it is clarified that if any amount is already remitted by the petitioner for getting interim custody of the vehicle, such remittance given credit and on the remittance of the balance, the vehicle will be released. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg