IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 20TH DECEMBER 2011 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 32216 of 2011(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KAMARUDDEEN, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. KUNJU MUHAMMED, PUTHOOR HOUSE, HOSPITAL ROAD, PERINTHALMANNA,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JESWIN P.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE ASSISTANT MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTOR, SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. SR GP M.J.RAJASHREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).32216/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P1A TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 15-09-2010. EXT.P2A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 13-01-2011. EXT.P3A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 23-09-2011. EXT.P4A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 18-10-2011. /true copy/ P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).32216/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 20th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the owner of a mini lorry bearing registration No.KL 11-Y, 6304. The vehicle was involved in a proceedings under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2011. There upon, the value of the vehicle was assessed at Rs.3,20,000/- and he was offered the vehicle on interim custody basis. However, since the petitioner could not comply with the conditions, he did not avail of the same. Proceedings were finalized by ordering confiscation of the vehicle. According to the petitioner, presently, the value of the vehicle has been fixed as per Ext.P3 at Rs.2,20,000/- and that in spite of it, he has been issued Ext.P4, enquiring his willingness to take the vehicle on payment of Rs.3,20,000/- and that further stating that in the event of its failure, vehicle will be auctioned. 2. The contention raised is that now on account of the fact that the value has been fixed at Rs.2,20,000/- there is no justification in asking him to remit Rs.3,20,000/-. Though prima facie this would appear to be factually correct, still from the instructions W.P.(C).32216/11 2 obtained by the learned Government Pleader, it is revealed that Rs.2,20,000/- fixed as per Ext.P3 is the upset price fixed for auction purposes. The upset price fixed for auction purposes cannot be the value for sale and the petitioner cannot ask for release of the vehicle on payment of such upset value. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept the case of the petitioner and direct that the vehicle may be released to the petitioner on his paying the upset price fixed as per Ext.P3. Writ petition fails and it is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs /true copy/ P.A. To Judge