IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2009 / 31ST ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 17835 of 2009(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ASHRAF PUNNAPPALA, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMED KURIKKAL, PUNNAPPALA HOUSE, PULLIPPADAM, MAMPAD P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR NILAMBUR TALUK, NILAMBUR. BY GP SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ....................... W.P.(C).17835/2009 ....................... Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT A mini lorry belonging to the petitioner bearing registration No.KL-10-Z/9739, was seized when it was allegedly transporting river sand without valid pass. This is evidenced by Ext.P2 seizure mahazar. Ultimately Ext.P3 order of confiscation has been passed by the District Collector, after finding that the vehicle was involved in an illicit transportation of river sand but permitting the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- for redeeming the vehicle. This is under challenge in this writ petition. As per the directions issued by this Court, files have been produced by the learned Government Pleader. 2. I have perused the files as well. That the vehicle was found involved in an illicit transportation of river sand without valid pass is not a matter which is seriously disputed. In fact I do not find any written objection submitted by the petitioner before the District Collector. In the circumstances, the finding that the vehicle was W.P.(C).17835/09 2 involved in illicit transportation of river sand is only to be confirmed and I do so. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the driver of the vehicle had misused the same without the consent of the petitioner. Even the said objection was not raised before the District Collector. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that at any rate value of the vehicle has been fixed on the higher side. Vehicle in question is a 2006 model mini lorry and going by the market value it cannot be considered as having been fixed on the higher side. I do not find any grounds to interfere with Ext.P3. Writ petition is dismissed accordingly. It is made clear that if the petitioner pays the amount as per Ext.P3 within five weeks from today, vehicle shall be released to him. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs