IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2008 / 25TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 37157 of 2007(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ JAIMON M.J., S/O. AUGUSTY JOSEPH, MOOZHIKKAL HOUSE, KIDANGOOR P.O., KUMMANNOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KIDANGOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LR), COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM. 4. VILLAGE OFFICER, KIDANGOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 5. STATE OF KERALA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ========================= W.P.(C)NO.37157 OF 2007 ========================= Dated this the 15th day of January 2008 JUDGMENT Ext.P7 is under challenge. Ext.P7 is issued by the District Collector exercising his powers under the Kerala Protection River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Rules. 2. Petitioner is the owner of the vehicle involved in the unauthorised transportation of river sand. As is evident from Ext.P5, soon after the vehicle got involved in the unauthorised transportation of river sand, petitioner approached this Court and pursuant to Ext.P5 judgment vehicle was released to him. Proceedings thereafter continued and Ext.P7 order was issued on 18.3.2004. But that was communicated only under the cover of Ext.P6 on 25.9.2007. Petitioner submitted that in all bona fides he assumed that the proceedings were dropped. 3. True, there has been delay in the matter. But since the petitioner was in possession of the vehicle involved, I do not think that the delay in communicating Ext.P6 has caused any prejudice to the petitioner. Petitioner complains about the value of the vehicle fixed in Ext.P7. It is stated that in Ext.P7, Rs.75,000/= has been levied as the value of the vehicle. Two contentions are raised by him. One is that W.P.(C)37157/2007 2 the rule does not enable the respondents to realise the value of the vehicle and the other is that in terms of Ext.P1 sale agreement, value of the vehicle was only Rs.44,000/=. Insofar as the competence of the respondents for levying the value of the vehicle is concerned, I notice that in terms of Rule 27(3), the respondents are perfectly justified in realising the value. Further if the value has been properly fixed, there is no reason to ignore the value so fixed by the respondents. Apart from the agreement that the petitioner has produced, there is no material to show that the value fixed in Ext.P7 is erroneous. In this view, the contention raised is unsustainable. Petitioner submits that the mahazar has not been properly prepared. In view of the findings in Ext.P7, I do not think this argument now raised has any worth to be examined in detail. Writ Petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE css/ W.P.(C)37157/2007 3