IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 28TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 31599 of 2011(Y) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- KUNJAPPAN N.C., S/O.CHACKO, 14/658, NEDUMPURATH HOUSE, P.O.PEECHI, VILANGANOOR, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.V.BINOY RAM SMT.SAJITHA P.SOMAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. FOREST STATION OFFICER, PEECHI, THRISSUR-680653. 3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT P.W.D.MECHANICAL SUB DIVISION, CHALAKUDY-680307. 4. THE WILD LIFE WARDEN, WILD LIFE DIVISION, PEECHI, THRISSUR-680653. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MOHAMMED SHAFI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SD WPC NO. 31599/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE VALUATION CERTIFICATE DATED 16-11-2011 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE SD ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 31599 of 2011 Y ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 28th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Petitioner is the owner of vehicle bearing registration No.KL-08AT-6554. According to the petitioner, the vehicle was hired by the first accused in O.R.No.2/2011 of Peechi Forest Station. It is stated that the third respondent has inspected the vehicle and assessed the value of the vehicle as `2,30,000/- and Ext.P2 is the valuation report. In this writ petition, what is contended by the petitioner is that the said valuation is exorbitant and without any basis. 2. In my view, the valuation as reflected in Ext.P2 has been done by the Assistant Executive Engineer, Mechanical sub Division of Public Works Department. Obviously, he is an expert and it was therefore that his services were utilised for the valuation and this Court does not have any expertise to sit in judgment over the W.P.(C) No.31599/2011 : 2 : assessment of value made by the Assistant Executive Engineer. In such circumstances, I am not persuaded to interfere with Ext.P2. Writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks/28/11 // True Copy // P.A. To Judge