IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2009 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 31172 of 2009(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- DINU, S/O.PRATHAPAN, AGED 27 YEARS, PALAKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, AANAPUZHA P.O., METHALA VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR. (REGISTERED OWNER OF A MINI LORRY BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL-11-6829). BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MALA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J ....................... W.P.(C).31172/2009 ....................... Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2009 JUDGMENT Heard Sri.P.M.Ziraj, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is the registered owner of a goods vehicle that was seized under the provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001, and the Rules framed thereunder on the allegation that it was used to transport river sand without a valid pass. By Ext.P1 order passed on 12.10.2009, the District Collector, Thrissur, ordered confiscation of the said vehicle. He however permitted release of the vehicle if thepetitioner pays the sum of Rs.55,000/- fixed as the value of the vehicle, in lieu of confiscation. Ext.P1 order is under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner challenges Ext.P1 mainly on two grounds. The first ground is that before Ext.P1 order was passed he was not put on notice or heard. The second ground is that the value of the vehicle was not properly fixed. 3. Ext.P1 states in categorical terms that the petitioner W.P.(C).31172/09 2 was heard and that he had submitted an application dated 22.9.2009 pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in W.P.(C).24728 of 2009 whereby this Court directed grant of interim custody. Ext.P1 discloses that at the time of hearing, the petitioner did not produce any material to show that the river sand transported in his vehicle was covered by a valid pass. The petitioner has no case before the District Collector that the transported sand in his vehicle was covered by a valid pass. In view of the statements in Ext.P1, I am not persuaded to agree with the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that before Ext.P1 was passed, the petitioner was not put on notice or heard. 4. Ext.P1 discloses that the District Collector got the vehicle valued through the Joint Regional Transport Officer, Irinjalakkuda, who estimated the value of the vehicle as Rs.55,000/-. The petitioner has not produced any material to show that the value adopted by the District Collector is exorbitant. The petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle. He should be aware of the invoice value of the vehicle. He has not disclosed the age of the vehicle or its invoice value. There is thus total lack of material to even W.P.(C).31172/09 3 remotely indicate that the value fixed by the District Collector is exorbitant. In such circumstances, I am not inclined to accept the petitioner's contention that the District Collector erred in fixing the value of the vehicle as Rs.55,000/-. 5. For the reasons stated above, I hold that there is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and dismissed. However, I grant the petitioner an opportunity to pay the sum of Rs.55,000/- in three equal monthly instalments commencing from 15th November, 2009. In the event of the petitioner remitting the first instalment of Rs.25,000/- on or before 15.11.2009, District Collector shall release the vehicle to the petitioner. The bank guarantee need not be invoked if the petitioner remits two instalments in time. If the petitioner commits default, it will be open to the District Collector to invoke the bank guarantee. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge mrcs