IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2010 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 14569 of 2010(U) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- BAJI, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O. NARAYANAN, CHEMPRA HOUSE, ANTHODE P.O., CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT.(OWNER OF VEHICLE BEARING REG.NO.KL-08-AF-3628) BY ADVS. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU, SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL) RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHAVAKKAD POLICE STATION, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 14569 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21st day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext.P1 order passed by the 2nd respondent under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 & Rules thereunder, whereby on a finding that the petitioner's vehicle was used for unauthorized transportation of river sand, the petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards the River Management Fund. As far as the question of liability is concerned, from Ext.P1, I find that before the District Collector, the petitioner had admitted offence. The petitioner has not stated in the writ petition that the said statement in the order is wrong. That being so, the petitioner cannot now turn around and challenge the liability of the petitioner for action under the Act and Rules. W.P.(C)No. 14569 of 2010 -2- 2. But the petitioner raises another point to the effect that the District Collector has fixed the valuation of the vehicle without obtaining a valuation certificate from the appropriate authority. Petitioner therefore submits that Ext.P1 is liable to be quashed and the District Collector is directed to get the vehicle valued by a competent officer as directed by the Division Bench of this court in District Collector, Malappuram v. Abdul Kasim (2010 (1) KLT SN 31 (C.No.38). 3. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. The learned Government Pleader produces before me a fax message received from the very same Collector in respect of another case relating to demand for River Management Fund for illegal transportation of river sand which reads thus: Attention is invited to the reference cited, the Rule 27 (3) of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act 2001 stipulated that, the vehicle may be returned to the owner of the vehicle or the possessor remits an amount towards River Management Fund equal to the price fixed by the District Collector with fine within seven days of seizure. The Act does not insist the value of the vehicle should be assessed by any expert. As per the said provision of the act the vehicle may be returned to the owner of the vehicle if he W.P.(C)No. 14569 of 2010 -3- remits an amount towards River Management Fund equal to the price fixed by the District Collector within seven days of seizure. The amount to be payed towards the River Management Fund is equal to the price fixed by the District Collector. As per the Act the District Collector has the discretion to fix the amount as the price of the vehicle to be remitted towards the River Management Fund. The act never insist that the amount remitted to the River Management Fund should be the price fixed the Regional Transport Officer. 4. I have considered the matter in detail. I am totally dismayed by the attitude of the District Collector in this matter as revealed from the above said letter from him to the Advocate General, Kerala. A Division Bench of this court in the above case has already decided that the District Collector is bound to get the value of vehicle determined by a competent officer, whom the Division Bench themselves has named as the concerned Assistant Executive Engineer (Mechanical), PWD or the concerned Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector. When the law has been so laid down by a Division Bench of this court, it is nothing but impertinence on the part of the District Collector. His stand that the District Collector has the absolute discretion to fix the value of the vehicle when the rules do not stipulate that the valuation should be done by an expert is absurd. The W.P.(C)No. 14569 of 2010 -4- District Collector need not necessarily be a person who has the mechanical knowledge for assessing the value of the vehicle. When the rules say that the District Collector shall directs payment of amount equal to the value of the vehicle towards River Management Fund, it should be the actual value of the vehicle and not the value as decided by the District Collector at his discretion. Therefore I have no doubt in my mind that the stand of the District Collector is totally unsustainable. The District Collector should learn to appreciate his duties and functions in the light of judgments of courts to make sure that he does not fall foul with the law. In the above circumstances, Ext.P1 is quashed to the extent the same fixes the value of the vehicle on the District Collector's own assessment. But I make it clear that the finding regarding the liability of the petitioner to pay the value towards River Management Fund is confirmed. The District Collector shall now get the value of the vehicle assessed by an Assistant Executive Engineer (Mechanical), PWD or the concerned Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector W.P.(C)No. 14569 of 2010 -5- and pass fresh orders directing the petitioner to pay the value so assessed by the competent officer as the amount to be paid towards River Management Fund for the violation found to have been committed by the petitioner. This shall be done within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This writ petition is disposed of with the above findings and directions. S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE shg/