IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2009 / 22ND SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 17388 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ASOKAN M., AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. KRISHNAN, MARATH HOUSE, PONNANI SOUTH POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR, COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR. 2. THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, CHAVAKKAD, TALUK OFFICE, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADAKKEKAD POLICE STATION, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.17388 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of August, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner claims to be the owner of a mini lorry bearing registration No.KL-9/C-7293. The said vehicle was seized by the 3rd respondent on 2.3.2009 on an allegation of illicit transportation of river sand. The 3rd respondent is stated to have prepared a seizure mahazar, which is available in the files. But, according to the petitioner, a copy of the same was not supplied to him. The vehicle was seized within Thrissur District, though it was normally operated within the limits of Malappuram District. The files were forwarded to the District Collector, Trichur who considered the issue. 2. On a notice of hearing having been issued to the petitioner, he appeared before the District Collector on 27.5.2009. Going by the explanation, which is seen to have been submitted by him in writing on 27.5.2009, he claimed that the W.P.(C).No.17388 of 2009 :: 2 :: transportation of river sand was with the aid of a pass, though he also conceded that the vehicle had strayed away gone from the normal and permitted route. According to him, this was because, the driver had lost his way. He then asked for condonation of the lapse and for release of the vehicle. No other reason is shown in the representation submitted on 27.5.2009. 3. The District Collector, after considering the report of the Sub Inspector and his subordinate officials, as also the explanation furnished by the petitioner, proceeded to pass Ext.P1 order holding that the illicit transportation of river sand has been made out. He then fixed the value at Rs.2,50,000/- and held that if such amount is not remitted by the petitioner, the vehicle will be confiscated. Ext.P1 has been challenged in this writ petition. 4. Learned Government Pleader has produced the files and I have perused the same. W.P.(C).No.17388 of 2009 :: 3 :: 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the vehicle was accompanied by a pass and therefore, the finding of the District Collector that the transportation was not accompanied by a pass is not correct. A copy of the order passed by the District Collector was made available. Even if the version given by the petitioner that the transportation of river sand was with the aid of a pass is accepted for a moment, it is clear, going by the explanation of the petitioner also that the sand was being unloaded at a place, which is not mentioned as the destination zone in the pass. The version of the petitioner that the driver had lost his way. It is too feeble to be accepted. In fact, the petitioner admitted his lapse, but prayed for condonation. The pass in question was not an inter- district pass. It could not, therefore, enable the petitioner to transport sand beyond the limits of Malappuram District. The seizure was effected W.P.(C).No.17388 of 2009 :: 4 :: within the limits of Thrissur District. No other tenable explanation was attempted to be offered by the petitioner. 6. The petitioner has produced Ext.P2 along with I.A.No.1825/09 as the representation allegedly submitted by the petitioner on 2.3.2009. The vehicle was seized on 2.3.2009. I did not find the original of Ext.P2 in the files. Significantly, the petitioner also did not move any other authority or this court at any point of time, prior to the passing of Ext.P1 order. Further, the representation submitted by the petitioner on 27.5.2009 also does not refer to Ext.P2. 7. For all these reasons, I am of the view that the finding in Ext.P1 that the vehicle was involved in the illicit transportation of river sand on 2.3.2009 is sustainable and is required to be affirmed. I do so. 8. I find force in the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that the value of the W.P.(C).No.17388 of 2009 :: 5 :: vehicle, which is a 95 model lorry, has been fixed at Rs.2,50,000/- is excessive. On a perusal of the files, I find that the value has been fixed by an officer attached to the District Collectorate at Rs.1,05,000/-. If that be so, there is no justification in fixing it at Rs.2,50,000/-. 9. In the result, Ext.P1 is set aside to the extent to which the value of the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-9/C-7293 has been fixed at Rs.2,50,000/-. In the circumstances, Ext.P1 is modified and value of vehicle shall stand fixed at Rs.1,00,000/-. The petitioner shall be permitted to redeem the vehicle, if he pays an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- within four weeks from today. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge