IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2011 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 13488 of 2011(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- MUHAMMED C.K., S/O. AMINA, CHAKKITAKANDI HOUSE, PULIYAKKODE P.O., MELMURI, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.PRAVEEN KUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM-676505. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PERINTHALMANNA-676507. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.13488 OF 2011 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of May 2011 JUDGMENT The vehicle bearing No.KL 4/U 9849, belonging to the petitioner was seized on 28-06-2010 by the concerned Sub Inspector of Police, alleging illegal transportation of river sand, contrary to the relevant provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. The petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.29529/2010, which was disposed of as per Ext.P1 verdict dated 24-09-2010, whereby the competent authority was directed to consider the matter in tune with the observations made by this Court in “Shan C.T v State of Kerala (2010(3) KHC 333). The grievance of the petitioner is that, pursuant to the above verdict, the matter was considered by the 2nd respondent, who passed Ext.P2 order dated 17-12-2010, wherein it is stated that the request made by the said authority to have the value of the vehicle fixed through the Regional Transport Officer is still to be replied and in the said circumstances, the value of the vehicle was 'provisionally' fixed by the 2nd respondent himself as Rs.4 lakhs and the petitioner has been directed to satisfy 30% of the same, so as to get the vehicle released, subject to other requirements as specified therein. W.P.(C) No.13488/2011 2 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in the meanwhile, the Regional Transport Officer, Malappuram has assessed the market value of the vehicle, which is stated as only Rs.1,97,000/- and has reported the same to the 2nd respondent as per Ext.P3 dated 15-03-2011. It is in the said circumstances, that the petitioner has approached this Court, seeking for a direction to be issued to the 2nd respondent to have the matter reconsidered based on Ext.P3, which reflects the actual value of the vehicle. 3. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 17-05-2011, the following interim order was passed: “Not admitted. Post on 30-05-2011. Meanwhile the petitioner can seek a review of Ext.P2 before the 2nd respondent in view of the valuation in Ext.P3. The 2nd respondent will consider and dispose of such petition if any filed, within one week thereof.” 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Govt. Pleader appearing for the respondents, this Court finds that there cannot be any dispute on the contents of Ext.P3, in so far as the petitioner is concerned, and since the grievance of the petitioner has been redressed by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court on 17-05-2011 as aforesaid, no further orders are required in the matter. 5. Writ Petition is disposed of, making the interim order absolute and directing the 2nd respondent to reconsider the W.P.(C) No.13488/2011 3 granting of interim custody of the vehicle as directed in Ext.P1 with reference to the market value of the vehicle as reported by the R.T.O, Malappuram vide Ext.P3. This shall be done forthwith, at any rate, within 'four weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the Writ Petition before the 2nd respondent for taking further steps. vdv P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE