IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2011 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 7135 of 2011(N) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MUKUNDA MENON, S/O. MADHAVAN NAIR, MANJULA NIVAS, DESHAMANGALAM.P.O., THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.PRAVEEN KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TRICHUR-680001. 2. THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, TRICHUR-680001. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.7135 OF 2011(N) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P3 and P4. According to the petitioner Ext.P3 is an order passed by the District Collector in the purported exercise of his powers under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act. It is pointed out that Ext.P3 was issued on 21.8.2010, after the amendment came into effect on 14.6.2010 and therefore the District Collector had no power to issue Ext.P3 order. 2. However, the learned Government Pleader rightly pointed out that, though by Ext.P1 order the vehicle of the petitioner was ordered to be confiscated and that the petitioner was directed to remit Rs.1,25,000/- being its value, the said order was challenged by the petitioner in WP(c).No.14682/2010 and by Ext.P2 judgment, this court disposed of the writ petition confirming the finding in Ext.P1 regarding the guilt of the petitioner. However, the District Collector was ordered to get the value of the vehicle refixed in accordance with law. It is stated that it was in pursuance to the said direction that the District WPC.No.7135 /2011 :2 : Collector got the value of the vehicle assessed by the Motor Vehicle Inspector and accepting his report fixing the value of the vehicle at Rs.3,40,000/- Ext.P3 order has been issued. Since the facts are as stated by the Government Pleader it cannot be said that the District Collector was exercising the powers of the Sub Divisional Magistrate while issuing Ext.P3. Even after amendment, it is perfectly within the District Collector to fix the value of the vehicle This is what has been done in Ext.P3 order. That apart a reading of Ext.P3 order shows that the value of the vehicle has been fixed accepting the report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector, whose competence cannot be challenged. Therefore, there is nothing in the writ petition for interference. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No.7135 /2011 :3 :